Dumping Fallacy

There is a theory that selling units from one side of a split coin for units of the other reduces the relative utility of the sold coin. However each sale requires a buyer. As a trade the action is symmetrical and therefore the theory is invalid.

There is a related theory that exchanging units from one side of a split coin constitutes dumping of the that coin, which reduces its utility. The theory simply misrepresents the concept of dumping. Dumping is state subsidy (not to be confused with Bitcoin subsidy) of a product sold in another state. It is a levy on the taxpayers of the subsidizing state, typically applied to establish market share for the product. In the case where demand is elastic, the subsidy increases sales volume for the product by reducing price relative to the otherwise market price. The lower price increases demand, by capturing buyers with lower marginal utility for the product, until the market clears. In contrast to dumping, trading at market price doesn't reduce price because it is not subsidized.

Finally, there is a related theory that reduction of hoarding generally reduces exchange prices of the hoarded property. This is true, however a transfer is not a reduction to hoarding levels unless the buyer of the hoarded property subsequently hoards it less than the seller. It is an error to assume this is the case.