Who would like DJI to (if possible?) offer that binding to all drone/mavic users and or to all the users of applicable drones irrespective of whether or not the pilot has flyaway insurance?

Let me explain.

Firstly, from some of the "The/my xyz is bound to another account" threads that I have read, I get the impression that equipment that is so bound i.e. bound such that flyaway insurance would be valid, is literally impossible to fly when the pilot is using a different DJI Account............... Qu 1.) Is this correct? That is a critical question because if it is incorrect and the drone can be flown using another DJI account then everything that follows is, I thnk, moot.

Assuming it is correct.
Qu 2.) I would also ask, is it possible to fly the 'bound' drone using the correct DJI account but a different controller that was NOT bound to whatever?
Qu 3.) If the answer to Qu 2. is yes, is this where the "5 flight limit" that I have seen mentioned comes into play?

It is also my understanding that the above process REQUIRES that the controller is bound to something. If that is correct, Qu 4.) TO WHAT must the controller be bound?

The reason I ask Qu 4. is because I was able to bind my Mini 2 to my DJI account, call that DJI account ''acc 1'', I then tried, in various combinations, using another controller and an entirely separate DJI Account, call the latter DJI account ''Acc 2''. I was able to fly the Mini 2 using every combination of controller and DJI account though, when using Acc 2, I did see that the drone was ''bound to another account''. I saw NO mention of any limit on the number of flight before ..........
I then swapped the binding to acc 2 and was able to fly the drone using every combination of controller and acc 1 etc. etc.. with the same results as above.

So what binding I could make seems to have been pointless.

I DO NOT have either care-refresh or Flyaway insurance and I have no intention of buying either. I simply don't want them.
Probably as a consequence of not having the Flyaway insurance I could not, using which ever bound account, see anywhere that offered me the option of binding the controller to something.
This leads me to believe that the binding of the controller to something is CRITICAL to any ability to ground a lost drone.

However, if the ability to ground a lost drone exists, it seems to me that bringing this about is not caused by a physical change in the drone, it seems to me that it means that a software switch is thrown that allows us, the users, to throw another switch thereby creating the necessary binding and that that IS ALL THERE IS TO IT.
To me that implies that the possibity to do this is already in the equipment but 'dormant' and allowing it just needs DJI to 'switch it on'.
Extending these thoughts leads me to believe that the communication between DJI  and the App/Controller/Drone during the purchase of Flyaway insurance simply throws that switch and thus,
1) DJI could equally as well throw the switch for everyone with an applicable drone and that
2) 'binding' need not necessitate the purchase of Flyaway insurance but anyone who wants to buy flyaway insurance could still do so.

I doubt anyone who buys Flyaway insurance is doing so JUST to ground a lost drone, in fact I would be surprised if grounding a lost drone is a sgnificant consideration for them at all, so I doubt DJI would lose revenue by doing this.
I doubt it would cost DJI more than a few minutes of a programmer's time to implement this. The conditions for the flyaway insurance could be still imposed, just as they are now, and so DJI would not be faced with a situation where drones, on which they have ''paid out'', could be flown.

However, and again this assumes the answer to Qu 1 is YES and bearing in mind the  "The/my xyz is bound to another account" threads that I have read, such a set up would, presumably providing the binding was already place, prevent thieves etc. and finders of ''left on a table somewhere by mistake'' drones from flying their ill gotten gains. As far as I now neither of those circumstance are covered by Flyaway insurance and therefore not paid out on.

I for one would certainly go for such a binding, in fact it was the reason for the experiments mentioned above.

Who would like DJI to (if possible?) offer that binding to all drone/mavic users and or to all the users of applicable drones irrespective of whether or not the pilot has flyaway insurance?

Let me explain.

Firstly, from some of the "The/my xyz is bound to another account" threads that I have read, I get the impression that equipment that is so bound i.e. bound such that flyaway insurance would be valid, is literally impossible to fly when the pilot is using a different DJI Account............... Qu 1.) Is this correct? That is a critical question because if it is incorrect and the drone can be flown using another DJI account then everything that follows is, I thnk, moot.

Assuming it is correct.
Qu 2.) I would also ask, is it possible to fly the 'bound' drone using the correct DJI account but a different controller that was NOT bound to whatever?
Qu 3.) If the answer to Qu 2. is yes, is this where the "5 flight limit" that I have seen mentioned comes into play?

It is also my understanding that the above process REQUIRES that the controller is bound to something. If that is correct, Qu 4.) TO WHAT must the controller be bound?

The reason I ask Qu 4. is because I was able to bind my Mini 2 to my DJI account, call that DJI account ''acc 1'', I then tried, in various combinations, using another controller and an entirely separate DJI Account, call the latter DJI account ''Acc 2''. I was able to fly the Mini 2 using every combination of controller and DJI account though, when using Acc 2, I did see that the drone was ''bound to another account''. I saw NO mention of any limit on the number of flight before ..........
I then swapped the binding to acc 2 and was able to fly the drone using every combination of controller and acc 1 etc. etc.. with the same results as above.

So what binding I could make seems to have been pointless.

I DO NOT have either care-refresh or Flyaway insurance and I have no intention of buying either. I simply don't want them.
Probably as a consequence of not having the Flyaway insurance I could not, using which ever bound account, see anywhere that offered me the option of binding the controller to something.
This leads me to believe that the binding of the controller to something is CRITICAL to any ability to ground a lost drone.

However, if the ability to ground a lost drone exists, it seems to me that bringing this about is not caused by a physical change in the drone, it seems to me that it means that a software switch is thrown that allows us, the users, to throw another switch thereby creating the necessary binding and that that IS ALL THERE IS TO IT.
To me that implies that the possibity to do this is already in the equipment but 'dormant' and allowing it just needs DJI to 'switch it on'.
Extending these thoughts leads me to believe that the communication between DJI  and the App/Controller/Drone during the purchase of Flyaway insurance simply throws that switch and thus,
1) DJI could equally as well throw the switch for everyone with an applicable drone and that
2) 'binding' need not necessitate the purchase of Flyaway insurance but anyone who wants to buy flyaway insurance could still do so.

I doubt anyone who buys Flyaway insurance is doing so JUST to ground a lost drone, in fact I would be surprised if grounding a lost drone is a sgnificant consideration for them at all, so I doubt DJI would lose revenue by doing this.
I doubt it would cost DJI more than a few minutes of a programmer's time to implement this. The conditions for the flyaway insurance could be still imposed, just as they are now, and so DJI would not be faced with a situation where drones, on which they have ''paid out'', could be flown.

However, and again this assumes the answer to Qu 1 is YES and bearing in mind the  "The/my xyz is bound to another account" threads that I have read, such a set up would, presumably providing the binding was already place, prevent thieves etc. and finders of ''left on a table somewhere by mistake'' drones from flying their ill gotten gains. As far as I now neither of those circumstance are covered by Flyaway insurance and therefore not paid out on.

I for one would certainly go for such a binding, in fact it was the reason for the experiments mentioned above.