CoinDeskPolicy發佈於 2024-04-07更新於 2024-04-08

文章摘要

The two-week trial will test the government's strategy of portraying complex crypto trades as simple fraud.

NEW YORK – Crypto trader Avi Eisenberg's criminal fraud and manipulation trial will open Tuesday after a federal judge seated a 15-person jury that includes a seller of rare books, an elementary school music director and at least two finance professionals.

Expected to run for two weeks, the trial will determine whether Eisenberg broke the law when in October 2022 he deployed a self-described "highly profitable trading strategy" that crippled Mango Markets, the once popular venue for betting on cryptocurrencies on the Solana blockchain.

The trial represents an evolution in the government's attempts to police alleged crimes in decentralized finance (DeFi), a sector of the crypto trading space governed by the notion that "code is law." Mango Markets is not tightly controlled like its counterparts in centralized finance, like Coinbase. Instead, trades, borrowings and loans execute on smart contracts.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Eisenberg is accused of illegally gaming Mango Markets' futures contracts by manipulating the price of the MNGO token and then borrowing effectively all of Mango's deposits against his position. He walked away with $110 million in cryptocurrencies other people had deposited on the platform, later returning a portion of that in exchange for a promise that Mango's backers would not seek his prosecution.

That promise was not kept.

Negotiation or extortion?

In court on Monday, prosecutors and defense teased upcoming testimony from Mango's founder, Dafydd Durairaj. He spoke with a ransomware negotiator for assistance in the wake of Eisenberg's trade, prosecutors said. This fact, they argued, could help the jury understand that Durairaj did not view the negotiations as an "arm's-length" deal between two parties, but rather a hostage situation that could implode at any time.

Judge Arun Subramanian sided partially with Eisenberg's defense team and told the government not to bring up the ransomware negotiator, lest it prejudice the jury. But he said if the defense opened the door by arguing the negotiations were "arm's length," the prosecutors could walk through it.

The parties sparred over the word "manipulation," its potential use by witnesses and its presence in online terms-of-service documents. They also clashed over the phrasing of what traders on Mango Markets were "obliged" to do when operating on the site. Was that word a legal concept, or rather a reference to the outcomes of executing a transaction on a smart contract?

Advertisement
Advertisement

Arguments over jargonistic minutiae foreshadow the complexities ahead in a trial that will test the government's recent strategy of presenting knotty crypto misdeeds as simple cases of fraud. The feds took that tactic in last year's prosecution of Sam Bankman-Fried as well as in the recent civil fraud case against Terraform Labs and Do Kwon.

But Eisenberg's case delves perhaps even deeper into the philosophical and practical questions about trading tokens on permissionless blockchains. His is the first federal criminal trial to involve a DeFi trader accused of breaking U.S. law in a sector that once viewed itself as beyond its reach.

Inside the courtroom

The prospective jurors sounded none too pleased to spend Eclipse Day on the 15th floor of a federal courtroom. One remarked she was supposed to be watching the generational event at a science museum, not a jury box. At one point the judge said he would turn off the lights during the event's pinnacle, which he did not.

More than a few came ready with eclipse glasses. They did get to use them, if only for a few minutes, while the judge and lawyers sidebarred over peremptory strikes. Prospective jurors, reporters and even the U.S. Marshal took turns peering out the tall windows at the partially covered sun.

"You can see it again in 20 years," the Judge later told the courtroom.

Edited by Marc Hochstein.

你可能也喜歡

开放系统终将胜出:为何以太坊是下一个 Linux?

本文以太坊与Linux的类比为核心,论证了开放、无许可的“集市”模式终将胜过封闭、专有的“大教堂”模式。 历史上,开放互联网击败了企业私有网络,Linux系统取代了Sun Microsystems等公司的专有Unix系统。作者引用《大教堂与集市》的观点,指出开放体系(集市)通过海量参与者的无许可协作,其创新速度和整体效率远超中心化规划。以太坊生态正是此模式的典范,ERC-20、ERC-721等标准及Uniswap等应用都诞生于社区的自主创新。 文章强调,以太坊的核心优势在于其“可信中立性”:规则透明、平等、难以篡改且人人可参与。这使其获得了主权独立性,没有任何单一主体能控制网络。相比之下,SWIFT、Visa等传统金融网络或企业联盟链都存在被中心化实体控制或利益冲突的平台风险。历史证明,具备可信中立性的开放体系(如互联网、维基百科)最终会凭借网络效应胜出。 目前,以太坊在开发者数量、机构采用(如贝莱德、Coinbase)、DeFi及资产代币化规模等方面已建立巨大领先优势。其历史形成的去中心化路径和庞大的生态互为增强,构成了难以复制的壁垒。尽管私有链在合规问责方面看似有优势,但文章指出,监管需求可通过应用层(如合规代币标准、零知识证明)在开放的结算层上实现,正如HTTPS最终确保了互联网的商业安全。 结论是,试图构建封闭金融网络的企业将重蹈历史覆辙,而基于以太坊这类开放、可信中立的基础设施进行建设,才是拥抱未来的正确策略。

Foresight News14 分鐘前

开放系统终将胜出:为何以太坊是下一个 Linux?

Foresight News14 分鐘前

渠道红利走到尽头,DeFi 协议靠什么抵御巨头收割?

当渠道红利耗尽,DeFi协议如何抵御科技巨头的收割?文章以Coinbase、Stripe、Kraken等巨头的动作为例,揭示了其“先占渠道,后控底层”的商业策略:依托庞大用户基础,在协议成熟后通过自建或收购掌控底层基础设施,从而将利润截留在自身生态内。 例如,Coinbase利用其海量用户推广自研二层链Base,所有交易排序费收入归己所有,而部署其上的Morpho等协议则持续为其贡献分润。Stripe收购Bridge以发行自有稳定币,将原本支付给Circle的储备利息收入内部化。Kraken收购NinjaTrader则直接获取了难以自建的衍生品交易牌照。 面对这种压力,头部DeFi协议的核心防御策略是多链部署与深度嵌入。像Morpho和Uniswap这样的协议,通过将业务扩展至数十条公链,分散了对单一链的依赖。即便在某条链上被巨头扶持的竞品挤压,整体业务仍能运转。更重要的是,当协议的技术和安全体系深度嵌入巨头核心业务(如Coinbase的借贷产品依赖Morpho底层)时,替换成本极高,形成了双向制衡。 最终,行业可能走向两种结局:一是由少数巨头垄断全产业链,开源协议沦为边缘补丁;二是开源协议通过快速的多链扩张和极高的替代成本,与流量巨头形成长期博弈与共生。目前看来,后一种可能性正在被Morpho、Uniswap等协议的实践所印证。这场关于价值捕获与分配的博弈,结果将决定未来金融科技的权力格局。

marsbit20 分鐘前

渠道红利走到尽头,DeFi 协议靠什么抵御巨头收割?

marsbit20 分鐘前

交易

現貨
合約
活动图片