That's just an assertion based on idealized economic theory; not evidence that things work that way in particular situations. In particular, you haven't explained why there are either a priori or strong empirical reasons to believe that greater market participation never produces adverse effects. Evidence from nearly every other complex-systems discipline, ranging from hydraulics to meteorology to ecology, points in the direction that such "well-behaved" systems characterized by general relationships, valid in all regimes, are quite uncommon; and instead "phase-change" type thresholds at which behavioral regimes change are the norm.

>greater market participation never produces adverse effects

I never said it didn't.

I said greater market participation increases innovation by default, regardless of the quality of said participation. You are the only one equating the behaviour of the markets to being either "good" or "bad". The reality is that these are not concepts the market understands or cares about.

Innovation can and does destroy entire markets all the time. But unless you feel innovation itself is horrible and we should be writing these arguments with typewriters and cabling them to each other, you simply have to accept the reality that innovation will occur all the time in every direction.