That bothers me:
Let us assume I was respected in the Bitcoin community but most people then parted with me for some reason. And let us assume that this emerged disrespect is because I want to stay focussed on our initial mission in the spirit of Satoshis Whitepaper as I understand it. Which is to give economic freedom back to as many people as possible as fast as possible. Increasing their spirituality and joy as quickly and as much as possible. And I cannot accept that this mission is postponed by two years or three just for a bunch of theoretical paranoid reasons or maybe worth, to win time to save the wealth of the western countries.
I would hopefully do what you are doing mostly. Except for a few things that I don't understand
I know Venezuelan people who do not care if it's Bitcoin Cash or BCash or Bitcoin. This is just not important. What happens if the BCH fork really frees a billion people 2 years earlier? Does the name matter?
If Bitcoin mass adoption begins with the poorest countries and ends with the United States, do you think this will be a smooth and peaceful Bitcoin adoption? I think Bitcoin will apply its effect on society regardless of the way it was adopted:
a) Smooth and peacefully rising Bitcoin will apply Bitcoin effects slowly to society
OR
b) Sudden bidder race for bitcoin by nationstates and central banks leads to a disruption of world wealth distribution.
a) is too slow, b) is too fast. But what tradeoff between a) and b) is actually optimal? I think nobody can know this at this point. But nowbody has to know at this point. We have a market for that. Now my question: Which community (BCH or BTC) will most likely sell enough of their coin to cool the ecosystem to avoid b), which community have enough sellers of last resort to avoid b)