In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC
Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.
That's not what BTC core dev seems to think of DRK
More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess it's impossible to review due to it being closed though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.
True.
When DRK open sources then you'll only have to trust the current master node isn't logging the data. Evan is promising an improved anonymity after he fixes master nodes, although this is just a promise and is entirely vaporware at the moment. He hasn't indicated what the method would be. He was promising ring signatures before that, which would have annihilated master node spying, however it would have also annihilated the point of master nodes. Time will tell.
With XC you have to trust the mixer isn't logging the data and that the mixer won't steal your coins. Giving control of your coins to another entity is just asking for trouble.
Trust and trustless here, as I meant it, is in the context of transactions, not anonymity.
Trustless transactions = Satoshi's model.
Trusted transactions = the normal mode of 3rd party that is trusted to not tamper the transaction / run away with the money etc.
Anonymity is another issue altogether. XC is fundamentally flawed at the transaction level. The fact that its anonymity is broken is secondary.