An item's worth is whatever someone's prepared to pay. Arguable but seems that way in practice.

News reports say "thieves burgled a jewellery store, stole goods worth £1 million". £1 million's the total of the price tags that someone decided i.e. cost + overheads + profit margin. Ditto restaurants, furniture stores, generally anywhere, where minimum prices use the same formula. What differs will be amount of the profit margin.

In auctions it seems that, win or lose, bidders can feel a bit ripped off or that it's unfair; both those feelings may be due to not having total control i.e. not having full knowledge of other bidders' intentions. No one likes to feel they're not in control so it feels a bit risky.

Thus some of those who lose auctions feel very alert to any perceived injustice such as a possible glitch, as shown by the OP's original question.

Add to all that the fact that to win, one must bid a compromise of what's a "fair price" and what's affordable to oneself depending on how much one wants the item (the two are not  necessarily the same £amount) PLUS A BIT £MORE. Most bidders will have a good idea of what's a "fair price" for that item, but the person who wins isn't the one who bids a "fair price" but who bids the highest amount. That's why, with multiple bidders, items tend to get sold for more than what a listing is worth, and that means "worth" changes to whatever amount is bid the highest.