Jurors Press for Clarity in $25 M Ethereum MEV Bot Trial — Defining “Good Faith” at the Heart of Crypto Law

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.