That is why IMHO we have a lot riding on the release of Darksend and we should take the time to do it right, because if Darksend does not work as expected then we are just another cryptocoin with no real value proposition.
What you say would be 100% true if DRK was an scrypt clone, but it's not. There are other differences as well, beyond DarkSend. Quark went on the market with 6 hashes to say it's ultra-secure, yet DRK has 11. This makes DRK a much safer coin than most (if not all) and also positions itself as a hedge against single-hashing currencies which are open to the possibility of having a catastrophic failure in case of a problematic hash. I mean if there is a market for Quark, why shouldn't there be for DRK - which is better than Quark in what Quark was supposed to provide in terms of security and safety?
The economic model behind DRK is also less inflationary in the mid-term which will allow it to be a good store of value.
Anonymity is the #1 feature of course, but it's not the only one. Otherwise if anonymity was the only criterion where a coin has real value proposition, then every coin in coinmarketcap would not have real value proposition according to this rationale.
The fact is that coins like litecoin, quark and vertcoin were promoted just because they used a different algorithm. Darkcoin introduced a different algorithm (which may be better than scrypt, scrypt-n or quark's) and yet it goes under the radar / unnoticed / not-considered-as-something-important, because people are focused on the anonymity aspect.
ASIC resistant coins offer no additional benefits to the end users they do exactly the same, they really just give the existing mining community a currency to redirect their hashing power to
This is a deeper issue of distributing the monetary base to more miners rather than a few centralized ASIC mining farms.
