Spodumene Prices, page-3993

Let me paint a scenario for you.
XT is an owner of 1m shares in PLS. XT bought at A$0.45 so has a significant capital gain on his investment. XT notices both the lithium market fundamentals and PLS's technicals have established a downward trend. XT wishes to protect his capital gain. XT has two choices:
1. Sell his shares in PLS, OR
2. Lend his shares to a third party under the umbrella of a SLA (Stock Lending Agreement). The SLA locks in a PLS share price so there is no downside risk to XT.

The third party will now sell these borrowed shares driving the PLS share price down. In other words engaging in the "EVIL" art of short selling.

So up to this point the impact of 1 and 2 is identical. PLS's share price will decline. However their longterm impact is different.
XT selling his shares is a done deal. There is no obligation to buy shares in the future. He may wish to do so because it becomes an attractive investment once again. The share price is driven down and all things being equal stays there.
On the other hand the short seller is obligated at some future point to buy the shares back and return them to XT. The impact of this action will be a recovery in PLS's share price. It will probably not recover to the original starting point BUT it will settle at a higher level than the price point arising from XT selling his shares and not buying them back.
So from PLS's share price perspective shorting is preferable to selling (and walking away)