I've seen this dynamic analysed in this thread long ago. I don't remember details, but it was being put forward as a positive thing: when the price rises new diggers are encouraged to dig and provide new supply, keeping a cap on the price. In this way the price is moderated and doesn't soar too high.

I guess the difference in this case is the sheer size of the wallet involved.

I find it hard to reason about the rights and wrongs in this case. The developers gave a fixed amount of CLAM to every funded BTC, LTC, DOGE address thinking that that was the fairest way of doing things. Now it turns out that it made for a very unfair distribution, and someone who (maybe) abused a bunch of faucets not only ended up bloating the BTC blockchain but also gets half a million dollars worth of free CLAM. How is that "fair"? Is it wrong to cancel digging because it's wrong to change the initial arbitrary rules? Or is it wrong to allow a single individual to benefit so hugely from his (possible) antisocial behaviour? I don't know.

And like he says, it's too late to do anything about it now. All we can do is decide what to do about the next such guy that turns up.