Even if the winning bid had been $3000, it wouldn't have changed the situation for everyone who lost the bid. By bidding $1, he only caused one person to lose the bid, which is whomever bid second lowest.
I understand where you're coming from but I disagree. Ignoring the emotional impact on the losing bidders I think that reducing the net payout of the market has a negative effect on all market participants.
If he won at a bid based on cost it would have kept the market at a price level comparable for all participants. He won the bid by ignoring all cost which has the effect of lowering the entire marketplace by pushing prices down.
He only pushed prices down compared to what the potential second lowest bidder would've bid. If the second lowest bidder was $1 (or even sometime withing a few dozen dollars of that), then there is basically no effect by his decision.
If he won at a bid based on cost it would have kept the market at a price level comparable for all participants. He won the bid by ignoring all cost which has the effect of lowering the entire marketplace by pushing prices down.