What amazes me is the amount that Calypso (population + off-planet and on-planet avatars) generated. Let me limit "customer" to the (majority) subset defined by these, in the below writing.
Let's assume 3.5 PED/deed/week (it seems to be close enough).
3.5 * 60k = 210,000 PED payout = 840,000 lost/paid by MA's customers to MA during this period.
84k USD customer losses to MA, in a single week. That's not peanuts! That's extrapolated 4,368 million USD lost by customers/year - and this was during a very slow week. From Calypso income only.
That's a VERY large amount more than what MA claimed Calypso to be worth in their annual 2010 report. In that, The value of Calypso was 2009-12-31 only worth 385k USD (take or leave - it was documented to be 2,8 mil. SEK IIRC).
As for the recent (insane) drop in returns/increase in cost - anyone ever thought MA would accept even one of its wholly owned subsidiaries to "give away" money? Would it not make more sense they at the very same time increased the cost of doing one of the three endorsed activities with at least as much as the 60k shares would suck from them?
60k shares, giving its "owners" "up to" 30%/year, they have most likely accounted for payout of 1,8 mil USD/year, and therefore based it on 7,2 mil USD total income from Calypso. Again, this is from what MA claimed in their annual report was only worth a few hundred k USD.
Given the choice between getting 1,8 million less revenue from their own baby, or rising the cost of participating for customers to cover it, it doesn't take another Einstein to suspect MA has made us pay more - especially with their documented economy.
So, to pay "someone else" (the deed holders) 25% (I'm confident they don't account for the obvious probability that many will cycle these weekly amounts back into EU, and I'm equally sure they also count on it), they need to rise the cost for everyone. And not only by 25%! No, not only do the customers get 25% of the total gross revenue - in the books it will read as debts! So MA the "PP" (Planet Partner - perhaps it's AR or whatever, perhaps its not) will not only get 25% less gross revenue, MA will have 25% to write up as debts!
With a "loss of predicted gross revenue" 25%, they in a stroke of genius (?) managed to revenue magically disappear, while effectively retaining all of it!
Also, that loss has to be covered. But why settle for only covering it, when it can be increased; hence the sharp drop in of "returns" (also known as sharp increase of cost to be an MA customer).
Still only a hypothesis, but I think many can validate the loss-of-returns since the deeds were introduced.