I don't think it's as simple as there being "good people" and "bad people", and that only the worst people are capable of extreme wealth. I think wealth just happens to some people. Some people are born into it, some stumble into it, a lot of people seek it out and a few of those people "succeed", though I'd argue even then it's mostly chance. Of the people who get substantial wealth, some give it away, some retire into a wealth cocoon and are never heard from again, some lose it, and some actively grow it because they love the feeling of gaining wealth.
I don't know if it's addictive in the same way that some chemicals are addictive, but I bet it's addictive in the same way that gambling is addictive, and wealthy people can get hooked on the feeling of "winning" more wealth the same way people get addicted to slot machines. I also think that it's not strictly wealth addiction, but power addiction, which is why some super wealthy people tend to extravagantly flaunt their power: building megaprojects, influencing or simply taking over governments, violating laws with impunity, forcing the working class to work in extreme conditions if not outright enslaving them, etc. The use of power is their drug and they won't stop themselves because they can't. Does that make them bad people? It makes them harmful people who need intervention, the same way an alcoholic needs intervention before they get behind a wheel. I feel bad for kids born into wealth, who never had the chance to just be a human without the veil of power being drawn between them and the rest of humanity. The Don Jr.'s of the world. That doesn't excuse their actions, nor does it mean that they don't need to be stopped. But I think it hurts us to think of them as fundamentally "bad" in the same way I think it's unhelpful to categorize alcoholics as "bad". The real horror is that the monsters are just like us, and treating wealth hoarders and power addicts like they're a different, less human kind of human is the same thing that they do to rationalize their own abuses.
I mean, they already do that, right? If buggy code comes with polished documentation and passing unit tests, that's a verification trail that looks correct but is not. The problem is that, up until recently, those were broadly assumed to be good enough even though we've known for decades that flawed unit test suites can ignore or even obscure bugs, documentation can be incorrect or out-of-date, because their existence implied, reasonably safely, that the dev who wrote the code understood it well enough to write the doc and the tests. The signals of correctness have always been imperfect, they were just good enough that we got by with them until now. Now we need to think of something more rigorous.