Nothing special happened actually, we will generate one million moto every month. People won't hold them.
Markets are strange, complex, and ever-changing things. Add to this the highly experimental nature of Moto in particular and the relatively large (differentiating) potential it holds, and I think you end up with something of a high risk/reward ratio. Throw into this the fact that it is tied to game mechanics, so it may be subject to certain "mud economic" effects, particularly with the concerns raised over the long tail. Moto may just naturally be a bit more volatile as a currency, particularly in these early days.
Maybe we should admit that moto was overpriced or decrease production rate.
I'll admit that it has been overpriced at times and under-priced at times. It has even been both, simultaneously, quite a bit and particularly lately! I'll never admit that it has ever been priced, because I feel that price discovery is an ever continuous process. :-)
I don't think we should change production
rate. This is another of those subjects where instead of jumping back into another one of the many holy wars that has been going on in Bitcoin-land for half a decade, I'll simply defer to Satoshi and his social contract.
However, again under an argument of "simply deferring to the venerable Satoshi on these subjects," I do feel we should revert the code for the end of the subsidy schedule, and cap production at the same total count as LTC. The great news here is that we have a loooooooooooong time to make or not make this change, so we can give it a lot of thought and analysis before pulling that trigger. (This just hypothetically creates more uncertainty in immediate-term price discovery, for sure, but again this should also hypothetically diminish over time and so is most felt in these early days of mixed liquidity.)
The good news is that there is no so called "premine" anymore.
Yes, I think the assumption everyone seems to be making - that this large unload of moto was (directly or indirectly) our "winningest bot operator" deciding to cash out a good chunk into btc - is probably a safe assumption. It is certainly too many coins for devs to have been dumping any remaining holdings or to be likely someone who was accumulating from bids on the book. At most, it might have been a bot operator's coins traded OTC once or twice before hitting the open market. (Someone should try to correlate back to the block-chain so we could get an idea of that?)
I'm also inclined to believe (with hindsight being 20/20) that this event is a very healthy thing for the coin! Although it made quite an impact on the books for a moment, Moto has continued to show a buoyancy that is highly unusual in crypto-currency. This distribution of coins corrects some potential for a large liquidity crunch that had been building. It probably gets coins into a lot of new hands, and some more coins into some old hands, which seems like a well timed occurrence considering that the next step after "rebuild hash-rate" will be merchant adoption. (In other words, it partly addresses some concerns that had been raised about too much centralized holding by bot operators.)
Anyway, the sooner we get to some large exchange the better...
I don't disagree, but it is more or less just not likely to happen until we have a difficulty target set. This doesn't happen until we have a more players or bots back online.
MOTO NEEDS MINERS!
