Darkcoin, as the fantastic brand, should have been left alone, to grow among the lunatic fringes of societies, it should have been offered to Occupy where anonymity is needed, it should have been a part of Wikileaks, it should have grown among the people that fight for privacy, for our right to property, to our right to be anonymous when we want to be, it should've been a part of Tor, and it should've been a tool to help us fight for our freedom.
I read all this with great interest and I think you encapsulate well the views of most people who are opposed to the name change.
All the same, I find myself drawing the opposite conclusions from all the same reasons you cite. For example, I don't think sticking with "Darkcoin" is courageous at all. I just think it's lazy. The word "Darkcoin" may have connotations of liberty, freedom and anonymity for you, but for some of us who've seen a few decades of such struggles it's just another yawn, go nowhere toothless piece of symbolism unless it's practical enough for all to access not just what you call the "lunatic fringe".
That's another point where I'd take issue with you. I don't regard myself as the "lunatic fringe". Neither I think would Wikileaks, neither would "Occupy". All these groups probably see themselves as representing the interests of most ordinary citizens globally. These are ambitious, intelligent movements your talking about, not bedroom fanatics. When it comes to monetary matters they'll use whatever best suits their needs at the time, not some kind of flag waving symbol that can't get the job they need done simply because it's not accepted anywhere that makes a difference.
Darkcoin will be nothing if it can't provide a service - especially to those groups who you cite around the world who need and seek financial dignity and anonymity. You may call that "appeasement", I simply call it "making yourself useful" since for me the name "Darkcoin" is even more of a joke than "Dash" if people think it's any more than a blunt spear when it comes to being of real service.
The real courage in all this is to have taken on the rebranding process at all. Feel free to come up with a name you feel better about if you don't like the one being proposed, but IMO your argument makes the case for sticking one's head in the sand and pretending there's not a problem when there is.
Wikileaks don't give a frig what the name of the currency they use is. In fact as far as their practical day-to-day financial activities go they probably need risky, "lunatic fringe" facilities like a hole in the head.
P.S. That Fed document you cite if about as significant as a 1994 study of travel companies making airline bookings available on the web.