Indeed you aren't. Yet when others with that experience (and there were plenty besides me) tried to help you, Michael and Saro took affront. Michael going so far as to stating that the Korean community was toxic and threatened to kill him. Hence seeing posts like this which talk about "kindness" and offers to consult rather scrape at the craw.
With regard to standing as Custodian. You have made that rather much impossible. By forcing through a seriously flawed constitution you have made it dangerous for anyone to become a member. You expose them to unlimity liability for the DAC. Even if that were not the case the conflicts of interest between Dacoco, the pseudo-foundation and the custodians means that you have created a functional closed shop in which a single custodian's influence becomes irrelevent.
For what it's worth, I am on record for not being a fan of needing a Dacoco entity at all. Many discussions about joint and several liability with our lawyers over time convinced me otherwise. The constitution is just a bunch of words and not as meaningful as how courts will actually rule based on their lack of understanding or precedent for dealing with a DAC. It will most likely be seen as a partnership or association (so I've been told) meaning anyone and everyone involved really is liable for what anyone else does. If that's true, why wouldn't our constitution accurately reflect that? You may not like that, but that's been the understanding of how things work in the real world (and world we're working to change, potentially via recognition of DACs through Liberland, etc). By using a service company, the DAC isn't doing business with individuals, but only has one main contract and that service company has traditional things in place governments are comfortable with (employment contracts, business insurance, banking, withholding tax, etc, etc). The foundation was needed (so I've been told) to manage the actual fiat funds. I don't see anyone else stepping up to do it. Those involved before I joined took on very real risk, and I respect what they have accomplished so far. Once the technology is completed with worker proposals, people can build whatever type of structure they want, either completely avoiding fiat and a service company or doing what we we've done or some type of hybrid.
As for Saro and Michael's actions, I don't speak for them. You'll have to discuss that with them. As for some aspects of the Korean community, I will say parts of it were toxic. There were forks of their community channels on Telegram and Korean members left the DAC because of actual death threats and the stress they were under dealing with aspects of that community that were actually toxic (this is not just my perspective as a westerner, but from the Korean community leaders and members directly). Maybe you didn't experience that so you don't have the same context or perspective, but things were pretty bad for a while. I'm thankful for those who have stepped up within the Korean community to help build the DAC and add real value instead of just bring criticisms about token prices or when they'll get on the next exchange for a pump and dump.
Unfortunately that is the crux of the problem. The team are very casual with the safety of its members. These are serious matters and are not simply "bunches of words". If it were so the team would not have their own backsides well and truly protected.
With regard to the Korean communitity - many of those people are heavily involved in business in the real world not idealistic teens that had dropped off 4Chan. The team clearly showed it was far out of its depth and did not have the experience to operate in an international setting. The sad thing is you haven't learned from it and Saro and Michael will without a doubt make things much much worse in China mostly down to cultural/business naivety.