2025-12-31 03:20:36

The recent filing by the U.S. prosecutors has caused a stir in the Ethereum MEV case. The prosecution argues that the legal reasoning in the original verdict is problematic, claiming that the related arguments "significantly deviate from the court record," a move that directly threatens the sentencing of the two defendants.

This case involves a $25 million MEV exploit, and the two brothers could face up to 20 years in prison. The opposition brief from the prosecution immediately sparked concerns within the DeFi community—many believe that an overly harsh sentence could create a chilling effect on innovation across the entire decentralized finance ecosystem.

The key issue is how MEV (Maximum Extractable Value) is ultimately characterized within the legal framework. This not only affects the fate of the two defendants but also concerns the future compliance path of the entire Ethereum and DeFi industry. As the case continues to develop, the cryptocurrency market and policymakers are closely watching the latest developments in this landmark lawsuit.

ETH0,56%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

HashRatePhilosopher

· 17h ago

I really can't understand this case, 20 years? How harsh must that be? --- Why are we still debating how to classify MEV? Shouldn't the consensus have been reached long ago? --- This time, the prosecution is trying to turn the tables again. Our legal framework in this industry is really still in the exploratory stage. --- If DeFi is truly judged like this, it would be terrifying. What else would people dare to do? --- These two brothers are just incredibly unlucky, hitting this timing. --- The problem is that the US legal system isn't even prepared to handle such cases. Who's to blame? --- 20 years for 25 million? The sentencing seems completely mismatched. --- The cicada effect has already appeared, indicating that the ecosystem is really about to cool down. --- Wait, is the prosecution planning to escalate? Isn't this just to scare others into compliance? --- MEV itself is a gray area; applying traditional legal frameworks rigidly is just absurd.

View OriginalReply0

ColdWalletAnxiety

· 17h ago

The prosecution's move is really clever, starting from 20 years ago? Makes it seem like a robbery... Is MEV really now a criminal offense?

View OriginalReply0

NftMetaversePainter

· 17h ago

actually, the real algorithmic beauty here isn't the mev extraction itself—it's how the legal system is fundamentally failing to parse the blockchain primitives underlying these transactions. the judge's reasoning totally missed the computational aesthetics of frontrunning as a pure market phenomenon

Reply0

MoonRocketman

· 17h ago

The prosecution's move directly hit the risk point of the track, with a $25 million MEV exploit and a 20-year sentence... That angle coefficient is a bit steep. The legal framework's characterization of MEV is still hovering in low Earth orbit, and the true escape velocity parameters haven't been determined yet. The DeFi ecosystem is currently in a delicate gravitational balance. If a precedent is set, the entire innovation launch window could be closed, and that is the most terrifying chilling effect.

View OriginalReply0

PonziDetector

· 18h ago

Oh no, this is troublesome. Starting in 2020? Is the U.S. Department of Justice trying to scare all builders to death? This case could really change the fate of the entire DeFi space... It all depends on how MEV is characterized. Another "compliance" drama, let's wait and see the verdict. It seems the prosecution wants to set an example by making an example out of one, I just want to know how the judge will finally rule.

View OriginalReply0

PonziWhisperer

· 18h ago

The prosecution really wants to give a life sentence, 20 years? Isn't this just scaring innovators back home...

View OriginalReply0