I'm afraid that a planet (dwarf planet, piece of floating rock... whatever) without name is much less inspiring than one with a name. A name says a lot about the meaning beacuse "everything is connected", you know ("as above so below" or "as below so above" - whatever you prefer).
Of course, it must be contrasted with applied reality. I mean, as time passes and astrologers incorporate them into their work, they slowly start seing how the work in reality: in each sign, in each house, etc. With time and patience the true meaning is approached by trial and error.
So Pluto eventually went beyond just being a cthonic deity, whose only known attribute was invisibility... to talk of all sort of Scorpian stuff, like life-and-death, deep metamorphosis... abstract wealth (money included) and stuff as distant from the apparent mythological Plutonian meaning such as sex (is there any sex in in the netherworld?).
The same metamorphosis from mythological to astrological happened to Uranus and Neptune before. Where in mytology does Uranus rule sudden changes or social structures? Where in mythology does Neptune rule dreams and compassion? In a sense they absorbed the meanings of the signs they came to rule, without losing much of their own actually.
The discussions here are very interesting but the full astrological significance of all these new objects will only be somehow consensuated decades from now probably. Still a new planet without a name is basically a mistery yet to be solved.