I should also raise the point that it's still an open question about how "dark" the logo should feel. There are a few approaches here:
- Embrace a consistent "dark" visual branding to coincide with the name
- Choose a neutral visual branding that leaves the interpretation of "Darkcoin" open in the viewer's mind
- Convey a specific message with the branding that turns the viewer's mind to a specific idea (e.g. privacy)
There are pros & cons to each of these. Some might argue that "dark" is a good schtick and will generate publicity. Others might argue that dark branding will cement an association with illegal activity in the viewer's mind.
With branding, it's less about picking what looks cool, and more about thinking through the ramifications, particularly in terms of how newbies will interpret our image / purpose / motivations.
My feeling has been that neutrality is the best choice. "Dark" won't play well to a wider audience IMHO and trying to convey too much about purpose with a simple logo can bring about unintended consequences as it pertains to individual interpretation. The "lock" logos for example - I see security, others see oppression. Both valid interpretations, one very definitely NOT what we're going for.
It may be possible to convey more of a message with proper vetting, but out of pure pragmatism that sort of vetting is going to be way more involved than I think anyone is able to deal with under the current circumstances, if it would be possible at all.
My suggestion would be to come up with a short list of maybe 3-5, then perhaps a standard (short) survey that community members can take to friends/relatives/coworkers who have very little to no exposure to crypto in general and get their initial impressions, so that there is at least SOME sort of feedback from outside the bubble.
]
