Well that's not the way I see it at all. We're holders of an asset - not co-creators or managers in some kind of "pact" with the devs. It's their job to take "unilateral decisions". Hopefully those decisions take into account the interests of all concerned including the coin holders AND prospective adopters (which are strategically more important by the way).

This issue has been debated for months.

Rebrandings happen all over the place in commerce and usually in response to customer pressure - not shareholder pressure. Shareholders simply decide on an ongoing basis whether they want to continue holding their shares or not.

IMO - contrary to what your suggesting - this whole thing has actually been handled very carefully apart from maybe a bit of diplomatic oversight. As far as the name goes, it would have been ill advised to announce the intentions before some steps had been taken to secure it because otherwise some adversary could have just come along and sat on it.

Obviously you can't please everybody so people will have to make up their own minds - I certainly have made mine up and I think this whole move absolutely reflects the goals, stated principles and if you like "social contract" of the project to a letter.