In my opinion the emission schedule should be decreased by 50 %.
For example, the current block reward is around 14 xmr - better to change it to 7 xmr.
It will help the dumping pressure and gives nice and steady growth for the coin.
The existing balances and total number of coins should not be touched but just give 100 % more time for the rest of emission.

If something like that were to be done, and I'm not saying it is even on the table, it would have to be for better reasons, like the long term viability of the coin. Every time the issue has come up, though, it is always presented as a way to manipulate the market. That is a total non-starter. We could convert to a PoS shitcoin if we wanted, and not have to deal with any dumping at all. There is zero interest in doing that. Move on to one of the 1000+ of those if you want to be free from dumping.

Actually I'd argue it is better to have a low price for a long time, so many more people can get in cheap.

XCN  has a 10 year half time.

and it's gone...

edit: back above 3.5

This is a critical support level. Could be the bottom

I disagree.
Long lasting low price will make the bagholders leaving from the coin.
It is like inflation vs. deflation debate.
Inflation is good for the economy but deflation is good for a person who likes to save money.
If you have slight, but constant increase in the coin exchange rate, it will attract buyers and buyers feel save to buy the coin now instead waiting for tomorrow for lower rate.

I recall more marketmakers such as Aminorex who have financial ability to buy sometimes even those dumps and on the other hand, sell when there is a buyer in the market.
After this dump I really understand the value of marketmakers.

Also, bitcoin's major failure in terms of financials is its huge volatility. This volatility prevents the big money entering into bitcoin.
A billionaire doesn't trust in a currency which can be tomorrow anything - up 10 % or down 10 %. Money should store value both short and long term.
If I am a billionaire and I have negotiated a business deal, I would prefer to eliminate this type of uncertainity.

Only if they are short term focused and impatient. Not much we can do about that, if the goal is long term sucess. They're just a mismatch.

Maybe the reason most pump-and-dump alts never amount to much of anything is too much participation from short-term-focused speculators. I don't see much use for them.

The good thing with an emission schedule is that you know it in advance. You decide to buy it or not, but you don't change it just like that. It's part of the social contract supporting the coin.
Changing such fundamental stuff on the way are good for other crappy alts. This is often (always) made out of greed rather than for building a functional economy. Monero is worth more than these arrangements.

If we grow organically, we won't have bagholders.

I don't entirely think it is quite that simple. You can decide to buy because of great advantages but despite problems with the emission schedule. You don't really get to choose between every possible variation.

The "social contract" emissions curve argument is a precedent that comes from Bitcoin and I don't really think it has done Bitcoin any favors. For example, the commitment to the insane notion of rewards going away and mining supported by transaction fees despite no cogent argument about how this is going to work has become something akin to a slow suicide pact. There may be other problems too (my suspicion is that Bitcoin's is too fast). Contracts, including social contracts, can and should be renegotiated when new information presents and conditions change.

I totally and completely reject the "cut emissions because we want less dumping" suggestion though. That is not a valid or useful reason to renegotiate a social contract.

Let's wrap this up though, unless someone can tie it directly in with speculation. Any further discussion should be on the main thread.