Ethereum
Jurors Press for Clarity in $25 M Ethereum MEV Bot Trial — Defining “Good Faith” at the Heart of Crypto Law
- Share
- Tweet /data/web/virtuals/383272/virtual/www/domains/theunhashed.com/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 63
https://theunhashed.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/mev_ethereum-1000x600.png&description=Jurors Press for Clarity in $25 M Ethereum MEV Bot Trial — Defining “Good Faith” at the Heart of Crypto Law', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
As the criminal trial over a alleged $25 million MEV‑bot exploit on Ethereum enters its deliberation phase, jurors have paused to ask pointed questions about key terms and testimony. They’ve requested clarity on what “good faith” means in the context of blockchain validation, signaling that the case could set a precedent for how decentralized systems are treated under traditional law.
Complex tech meets courtroom normalcy
The trial concerns two defendants accused of using a bot to extract maximal extractable value (MEV) in the Ethereum network through so‑called sandwich attacks. Jurors asked for definitions of “good faith” and “false representation,” suggesting they are grappling with how protocol‑level behaviors map onto legal standards. I found commentary that if the court accepts the prosecution’s framing, it could mean that protocol‑compliant activity might nonetheless fall outside a “legal good faith” defence.
Why this matters for crypto
The stakes extend far beyond the individual defendants. If the court holds that “honest validation” or seemingly permissible MEV activities can nonetheless constitute criminal misconduct, then many within the crypto / DeFi ecosystem will see a dangerous shift. Innovation may be challenged not on engineering or economics but on whether it conforms to external legal norms that may not align with how protocols are structured.
At the same time, if the jury accepts the defence argument that actions permitted by protocol rules are by definition in good faith, then regulators and prosecutors may face a harder path ahead when seeking to criminalise blockchain operations.
Tensions between code and statute
Blockchain practitioners historically argue that “consensus” rules and protocol incentives define correct behaviour in a decentralized system. Legal frameworks, on the other hand, generally demand human intent, good‑faith reliance, and transparent representations. The jury’s questions suggest they are trying to reconcile these frameworks: if a validator or bot follows protocol rules, but uses aggressive MEV strategies, is that still “good faith”?
The defence reportedly likened the alleged conduct to a “base‑steal” in baseball: technically within the rules, but ethically questionable. The prosecution countered with analogies such as airline over‑weight fees, arguing that no matter how complex the system, abusing ordering or value extraction functions may still amount to fraud.
Implications for the industry
The outcome of this trial may signal to crypto firms, protocol developers, and users how aggressive front‑running, sandwich attacks, or MEV‑extraction bots will be treated under U.S. law. It could shape incentives in blockchain design, discourage certain validator strategies, or trigger an increase in regulatory enforcement if it sets a precedent that protocol‑compliant activity is not always safe.
Developers may need to build with legal risk in mind, not just economic incentive; firms may reassess investments in MEV‑extraction tooling; users and institutions may shy away from systems where legal clarity is absent. The broader message: code may not be law, and behaviour aligned with protocol rules may still be legally fragile.
Watch points
As the jury deliberates, keep an eye on how the court instructs them about “good faith” and how actions conducted under protocol rules are characterised. Also monitor any post‑verdict guidance or commentary from regulatory agencies or industry associations; this case could spark clarifications or enforcement shifts.
If the verdict favours the prosecution, expect heightened uncertainty in MEV operations and validator economics. If the defence prevails, it may embolden more aggressive on‑chain strategies and reinforce the “code is law” mindset. Either way, the trial is a touchstone moment at the intersection of blockchain engineering and criminal law.
Ethereum
Small Kingdom, Big Move — Bhutan Stakes $970 K of ETH via Figment to Back National Blockchain Ambitions
Bhutan Turns Heads With Institutional‑Grade ETH Stake
The government of Bhutan quietly moved 320 ETH — worth roughly $970,000 — to Figment, the well-known staking provider, signaling a major shift in how the Himalayan kingdom engages with crypto. Rather than a speculative or retail‑style buy, this is an institutional‑level stake: the amount deployed corresponds to 10 full Ethereum validators (since each validator requires 32 ETH).
More Than Just Yield: Bhutan Anchors Crypto in Governance
Bhutan’s ETH stake comes on the heels of a far broader crypto‑adoption push. In October 2025 the country launched a sovereign national digital identity system — built not on a private chain, but on the public Ethereum blockchain. The decision to anchor citizen identities on a decentralized, globally supported network like Ethereum underscores a long‑term vision: decentralized identity, on‑chain transparency, and national infrastructure built with blockchain.
For Bhutan, this ETH stake isn’t about short‑term price swings or hype — it reflects a strategic bet on Proof‑of‑Stake infrastructure. By running validators via Figment, the government contributes to network security, potentially earns rewards, and aligns its own holdings and governance systems with the protocols underlying its digital‑ID rollout.
What This Signals for Ethereum — and for Crypto Governance
Though 320 ETH is a drop in the bucket compared to total staked ETH globally, the move carries symbolic weight. A sovereign state publicly committing funds to ETH staking via a recognized institutional provider adds to the broader narrative: that Proof‑of‑Stake networks are maturing, and that blockchain can underpin more than speculative assets — it can support identity, governance, and long-term infrastructure.
Moreover, it highlights that institutional staking services like Figment are increasingly trusted not only by hedge funds or corporations, but by governments. According to Figment’s own data, their Q3 2025 validator participation rate stood at 99.9%, and they reported zero slashing events — underlining the reliability such clients are counting on.
What to Watch Next
Will Bhutan stake more ETH? On‑chain data shows the wallet still holds a portion of ETH that remains unstaked — suggesting potential for future validator additions.
Will other nations follow suit? If Bhutan’s mixed use of crypto — combining reserve assets, public‑service infrastructure, and staking — proves viable, it could serve as a blueprint for other smaller states looking to modernize governance with blockchain.
Will this affect ETH’s valuation? Hard to say immediately. The 320 ETH is unlikely to move market prices by itself. But if this step becomes part of a larger trend toward institutional and sovereign staking, the cumulative effect on demand and network security could indirectly support ETH’s long-term value proposition.
Ethereum
Vitalik Buterin’s $760K Bet on Privacy: What His Donation to Session & SimpleX Chat Signals for Crypto Messaging
The Ethereum Co-Founder’s Move Sends a Clear Message
When Vitalik Buterin committed a six-figure sum to two emerging privacy-focused messaging apps, it wasn’t just philanthropy — it was a strategic statement. Buterin donated 256 ETH, worth around $760,000, split evenly between Session and SimpleX Chat. His stated goal was to support projects pushing the boundaries of messaging privacy, especially those eliminating traditional identifiers like phone numbers and making metadata invisible.
This kind of move doesn’t happen in a vacuum. In a time when digital surveillance is tightening and governments are scrutinizing communication platforms with increasing intensity, Buterin’s gesture highlights a pivot: from just end-to-end encryption to full-stack privacy, where even metadata — who, when, how often — is protected.
Why Session and SimpleX Matter Now
Session and SimpleX represent a different paradigm from mainstream encrypted apps like Signal or Telegram. Session leverages a decentralized onion-routing network to remove central points of failure and obscure the origin and destination of messages. It doesn’t require a phone number or email to create an account, which means your communication identity isn’t linked to your real-world ID.
SimpleX Chat takes a similarly radical approach. It discards all global user identifiers and uses temporary, non-persistent session IDs. By default, it avoids any server-side storage of user metadata. This pushes the envelope on what private messaging can mean in a Web3 context.
But these aren’t just fringe apps. They represent a broader movement aiming to decouple identity from communication — something that increasingly resonates in crypto-native communities, where pseudonymity and sovereignty are core values.
More Than Encryption: The Metadata Battle
Traditional “secure messaging” has largely focused on content encryption — making sure only sender and receiver can read the messages. But in reality, metadata often tells a more powerful story. When messages were sent, how often you interact with someone, and your communication graph can all be used for behavioral profiling or even retroactive surveillance.
Buterin made clear that metadata privacy is what matters most now. Without tackling this, he argued, truly private communication cannot exist. That’s what sets his donation apart from the usual talk around encryption — it’s a direct endorsement of messaging without identifiers, without centralized relays, and without traceable networks.
This push is timely. As lawmakers in the EU and elsewhere explore so-called “chat control” proposals that would force companies to scan messages or retain metadata, the crypto space is responding by building alternatives. These aren’t just apps — they’re defensive tools for digital sovereignty.
A New Standard for Web3 Messaging
The implications for the broader crypto and Web3 landscape are significant. Messaging is the most common digital activity, and yet Web3 has largely ignored it in favor of finance and infrastructure. But with Buterin’s donation, a clear priority emerges: communication deserves the same decentralization and privacy guarantees that DeFi or NFTs claim to offer.
These apps could become part of a broader stack of decentralized identity and communication tools. Imagine wallets that message, DAOs that coordinate privately, or pseudonymous communities built on trustless comms. It’s not hard to see a future where crypto-native messaging protocols replace traditional platforms for everything from coordination to customer support.
That said, the technical challenges are steep. Delivering strong metadata privacy without sacrificing multi-device support, uptime, or usability is no easy feat. Session, for instance, still struggles with message delivery in fringe networks. SimpleX is relatively new and has yet to scale its infrastructure globally.
But if these projects succeed, they may define what Web3 communication should look like: decentralized, permissionless, and invisible to the watchers.
What Comes Next
Vitalik Buterin’s donation is a catalyst, but it also raises expectations. Privacy-focused apps like Session and SimpleX must now prove they can scale beyond early adopters. That means building user-friendly interfaces, integrating with crypto tools, and making privacy seamless — not a technical obstacle.
If these apps succeed, they could become foundational in the same way MetaMask or Uniswap did in their domains. And if others follow Buterin’s lead — both with capital and adoption — we could see a serious pivot in Web3 toward communication infrastructure that doesn’t leak our lives through metadata.
In the age of AI surveillance, mass data collection, and algorithmic profiling, who you message — not just what you say — is a liability. But with projects like Session and SimpleX now backed by Ethereum’s most influential founder, the path to invisible messaging just got a powerful new boost.
Ethereum
Offchain Labs Pushes Back on Vitalik Buterin’s RISC‑V Proposal, Says WASM Is the Smarter Path for Ethereum
In a move that could influence the next generation of blockchain architecture, Offchain Labs — the core developer behind the Arbitrum ecosystem — has publicly challenged Vitalik Buterin’s recently floated idea to adopt the RISC‑V instruction set architecture (ISA) as the foundation for Ethereum’s execution layer. The research team argues that while RISC‑V has become prominent in zero‑knowledge (ZK) proof systems, it may not be the optimal choice for smart‑contract delivery on layer one. Instead, they propose WebAssembly (WASM) as a more future‑proof format.
The Core of the Debate
Offchain Labs’ researchers introduce a useful conceptual separation: the “delivery ISA” (dISA), which defines how contracts are uploaded and stored on‑chain, versus the “proving ISA” (pISA), which is used by ZK‑VMs to verify execution. They argue that Vitalik’s proposal implicitly assumes a single ISA should serve both roles, but this assumption risks locking Ethereum into a format optimized for today’s ZK proving, not long‑term delivery and flexibility.
The team points out that RISC‑V has shown strong performance in ZK proof contexts, but it does not necessarily perform well in diverse node‑hardware environments, where most clients do not run native RISC‑V CPUs. Emulating RISC‑V on commonly used hardware introduces inefficiencies and may undermine decentralization. WASM, by contrast, executes efficiently on general hardware, is type‑safe, and benefits from a robust and well‑supported developer ecosystem.
Implications for Ethereum’s Future
The research suggests that anchoring Ethereum’s delivery ISA to RISC‑V now could effectively freeze the ecosystem into a proving‑ISA strategy that may become outdated as ZK‑VM architectures evolve. They caution that RISC‑V was never designed primarily for ZK proving or smart‑contract delivery but rather for hardware microprocessors — a fact that limits its long‑term suitability in a general‑purpose blockchain context.
By selecting WASM for contract delivery, with the option to compile it into whatever proving ISA emerges as superior, the blockchain ecosystem retains flexibility, avoids hardware lock‑in, and aligns smart‑contract deployment with a mature and widely supported programming standard. Offchain Labs argues WASM could philosophically serve as an “Internet protocol” layer for smart contracts — agnostic to the underlying hardware or proof system.
Why This Matters Right Now
Ethereum is nearing a set of protocol design decisions that will shape not just the next upgrade, but its evolution over the coming decade. As ZK proof technologies evolve and node hardware becomes increasingly heterogeneous, selecting an ISA for Layer 1 becomes a strategic architectural choice, not just a technical one. If Ethereum adopts an ISA optimized solely for today’s proving stack, it may compromise adaptability, decentralization, and inclusivity across hardware platforms.
Offchain Labs’ response reframes the ISA decision as a battle between flexibility and immediate efficiency. Their argument is simple: prioritize future‑proofing over optimization for today’s ZK tech.
What to Monitor
Over the next several months, developers and observers should keep an eye on Ethereum’s core roadmap and community discussions. Will the network choose separate ISAs for delivery and proving? Will it commit to RISC‑V or pivot to WASM? The maturity of tooling, compiler support, and infrastructure around WASM could prove decisive, especially as alternative ZK‑VM designs begin to experiment with non‑RISC architectures.
Ultimately, this may look like a low‑level implementation dispute, but it reveals something deeper: Ethereum’s infrastructure choices today will define its trajectory for the next decade. The RISC‑V vs. WASM debate is not just about smart contracts — it’s about what kind of computational future Ethereum wants to build.
-
Cardano2 months agoCardano Breaks Ground in India: Trivolve Tech Launches Blockchain Forensic System on Mainnet
-
Cardano2 months agoCardano Reboots: What the Foundation’s New Roadmap Means for the Blockchain Race
-
Cardano2 days agoSolana co‑founder publicly backs Cardano — signaling rare cross‑chain respect after 2025 chain‑split recovery
-
Bitcoin2 months agoQuantum Timebomb: Is Bitcoin’s Foundation About to Crack?
-
Cardano2 months agoAfter the Smoke Clears: Cardano, Vouchers, and the Vindication of Charles Hoskinson
-
Cardano2 months agoMidnight and Google Cloud Join Forces to Power Privacy‑First Blockchain Infrastructure
-
Ripple2 months agoRipple CTO David “JoelKatz” Schwartz to Step Down by Year’s End, but Will Remain on Board
-
News2 months agoRipple’s DeFi Awakening: How mXRP Is Redefining the Role of XRP
