Bitcoin is not a stock. It’s designed to be a medium of exchange. Just like a currency. When someone trades euros for dollars, is it „dumping of shares“ too? Ofc nah. It’s simply switching into a different medium of exchange. And just like you can’t pay with dollars in europe, you can’t pay with Bitcoin everywhere yet.
So the logical step is, to trade Bitcoin against whatever currency is accepted wherever you are, and then do the trade(if you’re trading with parties that don’t accept Bitcoin yet). But the more Bitcoin will be accepted, the less this will be necessary and you can use Bitcoin as a medium of exchange directly. Then there will be no more „dumping of shares“ and (spoiler alert) the system didn’t collapse. Or in simple words: magic myth numbers will allow for direct worldwide trade without intermediaries.
I don't really disagree with your overall points tadamichi, yet I am a little bit bothered if we end up locking ourselves too much into assertions that bitcoin is like a currency and not like a stock.. because in several ways, based on bitcoin's unique design aspects, bitcoin is like a lot of asset classes all at once. So, in that regard, bitcoin can be used like a currency, but there is already quite a bit of reluctance for bitcoin HODLers to use bitcoin like a currency in part based on the fact that it is the most sound of monies that the world has ever seen... so many people are going to become way more reluctant to spend it, when they may well have access to a lot of other monies that are less valuable and they can spend those less valuable monies (even assets) first.
So in some sense, there seems to be a kind of current built-in incentive status, that bitcoin HODLers are less likely to spend their bitcoin until after such a point that they either run out of the other kinds of monies/assets or they are so damned overly allocated in bitcoin that they have no disincentive to spend it because they have too much of it anyhow. It can take a while for bitcoin HODLers to get to the point in which they feel that they are overly allocated in bitcoin, especially if they are receiving cashflow/value from other kinds of asset classes/currencies - so they may well be inclined to spend those lower value assets./currencies first.
Personally, I don't have any real issues comparing bitcoin to stocks, even though it will tend towards a lot of misunderstandings if there are too many attempts to pigeonhole bitcoin into such a category - because in essence all stocks have a considerable amount of centralization, and so it could end up being way too misleading to be presuming bitcoin to be similar in those kinds of ways that HODLers/developers/miners have some kinds of control over bitcoin's issuance - and they do not.. it's almost as if Snowshow is wanting to imply that bitcoin has proof of stake attributions (similar to stocks) when it does not, so in that regard I agree with you tadamichi that getting too caught up in stock analogies will lead people to NOT understand the attributions of bitcoin very well.