Couple thoughts.  If it matters, I work at a wall street bank and have an understanding of the relevant market dynamics.  Triff generally has the right of it.

1) Two separate coins is a bad idea.  Or at least its bad for Fibre.  The value of Fibre is essentially a claim on the future development work and adoption of Fibre.  If there are instead two coins by the same devs with the same ideas, you're not getting any synergies, you're just getting disorganization and dilution.  It would be like if Satoshi had come out with Bitcoin1 and Bitcoin2.  Doesn't make any sense.

2) Donations requests are also a bad solution.  It's the classic "tragedy of the commons" problem, where gain of the community and gain of the individual contributor are highly divergent.  It makes too much financial sense to sit back and hope others donate.

3) Given 1 & 2; it seems the best course is to either (A) hardfork Fibre to effectively create a new / larger "premine"; or (B) create a new coin that accomplishes the same thing by allowing Fibre holders to convert, with the end result that current Fibre holders have the same ownership levels in the new coin as they do in Fibre, except that the dev group has a greater share.

Possibly more creativity is needed for (3), but (1) & (2) are unworkable.