Take a look at this CoinShuffle propaganda piece. The author publishes this article right after Evan explained why CoinShuffle is not anonymous and doesn't waste time by calling DarkCoin "flawed at its core". The only thing flawed here however is his knowledge of DarkCoin. His only argument bases on the claim that you'd have to trust Masternode owners, not that DarkSend itself can be deanonymized via Blockchain analysis. We all know this is ridiculous. A single Masternode operator is unable to do jackshit with the information running through his node, even disregarding the fact that he gets paid for his service. You'd have to run more than half of all Masternodes in existence, which is cost-prohibitive in itself already, just to have a tiny chance to deanonymize a single transaction. But at this point probably no one would need DarkCoin anymore because the attacker made every single user of the network a multi-millionaire in fiat, since that's how expensive it would be to run an attack with a ridiculous chance of success.

Calling DarkCoin flawed for having Masternodes is like calling Bitcoin flawed for having miners, because you'd have to "trust them" to mine your transaction.

Edit: typos