Two things I noticed on the web site. First, the site does not mention that principles include allowing thieves to keep their ill-gotten gains and that investors can trust that their investments will be completely depleted if taken by thieves - which the blockchain will tolerate. The code is the law which mean investors have to trust the code will not be exploited for nefarious purposes. I am not sure how you can claim you want it to be trustworthy at the same time, but maybe other investors can figure that out.
I also noticed you take donations in ETH. How ironic.
You seem to be lying, I don't take donations.
The "thieves" argument is moot in the case of ETH/ETC. The Ethereum foundation was not compelled by any kind of law enforcement to take action against those "thieves" and it doesn't appear that any due process took place. The fork is an attempt to have it both ways: "let's do law and order like IRL", but also "we will use the code as law to bring justice and move the tokens the way we feel is right".
Here is what should have happened it this wasn't a huge mess of overlapping interests between investors, bagholders, the foundation, slock.it, etc:
The DAO investors find out their investment is at risk. They ask ETH to help. ETH says either "sorry, not our problem, talk to slock.it" or - if they're feeling polite that day - "sorry, there is something we could do (a fork) but it's against our own rules". At which point the DAO investors sue the foundation and/or slock.it, get a court order (or not), fork happens (or not). Not that it would be much less controversial but at least the "law and order" argument would make more sense.
But that sounds slow and inefficient, so fuck it, let's just do justice our own way. Right?
