Coin Center has disputed prosecutors’ “honest validation” theory in the Ethereum MEV trial of Anton and James Peraire-Bueno.
Crypto advocacy group Coin Center has entered a debate over one of the most-watched blockchain-related court cases in years.
The organisation filed a legal brief in which they defended how Ethereum’s maximal extractable value (MEV) system works. The group also rejected the US government’s argument about “honest validation.”
At the centre of the case are brothers Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, who prosecutors accuse of exploiting Ethereum validators to execute a $25 million MEV attack in April 2023.
Coin Center Says ‘Honest Validation’ Is Misunderstood
Coin Center’s brief argues that “honest validation” within Ethereum is a technical process, not a moral or legal one.
The group says that validators are expected to follow the mathematical rules built into Ethereum’s consensus mechanism, not an external code of ethics.
According to Coin Center, the defendants did not break any rules that exist within the blockchain itself.
The advocacy group warned that the government’s argument risks setting a dangerous precedent. This precedent could blur the lines between lawful blockchain participation and fraud.
“Honest validation’ in cryptocurrency communities is a mathematical check, rather than a legal or normative judgment,” Coin Centre wrote.
It added that the prosecution wants to “impose a novel and alien code of conduct on top of protocol rules.” It says that this is something that would harm innovation in blockchain networks.
The organisation’s stance indicates that Ethereum validation must be judged by the code’s internal logic, not by external definitions of honesty or fairness.
US Prosecutors Say the Brothers Misled the Network
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) takes a very different view to this. Prosecutors argue that Anton and James Peraire-Bueno presented themselves as “honest validators” to earn trust within the network.
They then used the position to manipulate transactions for profit.
Brothers Anton and James Peraire-Bueno arrested for a sophisticated $25M MEV-boost hack on April 2, 2023.https://t.co/O084AoeKrO
Two MIT graduates now facing up to 20 years in prison. Caught laundering stolen crypto and googling how to do it.https://t.co/PTXxN0K1Fp pic.twitter.com/Ad0rACtJkh
— Peter Kacherginsky (@_iphelix) May 15, 2024
Their alleged scam involved reordering transactions in Ethereum blocks to capture large profits from MEV bots. This is a practice known as a “sandwich attack,” and prosecutors claim that the brothers’ actions amounted to wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to receive stolen property.
According to courtroom reports from Inner City Press, government lawyers say that the two brothers “engaged in false pretences” to steal from Ethereum users and earn $25 million.
If convicted, they face up to 20 years in prison on each count.
Ethereum MEV Explained
MEV is short for maximal extractable value. It refers to the extra profit a validator can earn by changing the order of transactions inside a block.
This practice has existed on Ethereum and other blockchains for years. While it is often controversial, it is not explicitly banned by protocol rules.
Validators, traders and bots sometimes compete to capture these profits by finding and taking advantage of transaction patterns. Moreover, supporters argue that MEV is a natural feature of blockchain markets.
Critics, on the other hand, say that it allows manipulation and harms regular users by pushing up transaction costs.
Courtroom Tension Over Legal vs. Policy Arguments
Coin Center filed its amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on the fourteenth day of the trial.
The DOJ opposed the filing and claimed that it would introduce policy arguments meant to influence the jury rather than focusing on the law.
Prosecutors are worried that the group’s involvement could make the case seem like a larger debate over blockchain freedom, instead of a straightforward fraud trial.
Coin Centre insists that its brief is meant to clarify technical misunderstandings, not sway jurors with political reasoning.
Besides, it also warned that criminalising the actions of blockchain participants who follow on-chain rules could kill innovation across the sector.