Perfectly sums up the importance of have a logo designed that is centric to YOUR business and what actually makes you unique among your competitors and to your audience. Something with an actual point of view - not separated out as an object on the side of a page, but as part of a larger, branded platform for your business.
You guys got a dodecahedron, because "there are patterns in nature, there are patterns in business - Plato used solids, we liked the ether one". As a former Brand/ID designer, and I know this is going to sting a bit but... that's the most high-falutin rubbish I've ever seen presented to a client as a 'rationale' - maybe second to the Arnell Group's pitch to Pepsi during their rebrand.
So, you started with a bad logo. No big deal. Then you surveyed the logo out to 1000 respondents (cringe) - because you got a few feedback tweets on Twitter (Double Cringe) - and only 2% of those surveyed, both US and Europe, thought it looked like underwear. You then saw this as substantive enough to change the angle of the object and decreased the width of the white-lines (so now, its going to look extra-crunchy when size it down to fit anywhere smaller than a quarter.).
I get that the company is in the field of data-metrics - but instead of testing the crap out of a logo based on a small margin of respondents' twitter comments, couldn't you have taken the premise of data/metrics gathering and analyzation and have that be the inform the concept that would ultimately deliver your logo? Seems like the perfect opportunity for a dynamic identity - maybe shifting day-to-day based off of some metric you're monitoring. Your company seems to be about translating up-to-the-second data - and the logo is a repurposed shape, based on a methodology of a philosopher who lived thousands of years ago?