As an archaeologist, state formation (countries, not chain state), was one of the most important questions in human (pre)history.

Personally, I was always most convinced by a loose framework of theories that centered on the distinction between Roving Bandits and Stationary Bandits.
Roving Bandits took what they wanted, and often that mean burning down the fields and villages you plundered. Vikings and steppe nomads are some relatively modern examples. Also pirates.
Stationary Bandits didn’t move around much, staying within a defined range to repeatedly plunder the same targets. Protection rackets and feudal lords are prime examples.
The incentives couldn’t be more different. Roving Bandits had no incentive to avoid rape and murder and just wonton destruction.
Stationary Bandits, in contrast, could maximize their periodic looting by exercising some restraint. Their targets are less likely to fight back or hide their valuables if they know their local Stationary Bandit is coming once a month for a fixed number of goats or sacks of grain.
It also means Stationary Bandits have skin in the game to keep away Roving Bandits and other Stationary Bandits to prevent their stream of loot and tribute from being cut off.
So, the theory goes, Stationary Bandits become warlords and the warlords eventually evolve into petty kings.
This is not to say Stationary Bandits were benign - the idea that a state should serve its citizens came much later with ancient republics (and most residents weren’t citizens).
But it meant there was a monopoly on violence, so there was generally less violence and an opportunity to build up a functional economy when you don’t start from zero every time some Roving Bandit found you. Think of all the times DPRK bushwhacked a protocol.
Crypto is still pretty wild, but don’t be a Roving Bandit (even a small one that’s not breaking the law)