Canadian brothers Anton and James Peraire-Bueno are standing trial this year, accused of an alleged $25 million theft through in crypto is called “Maximal Extractable Value.” Prosecutors allege that MEV strategy amounted to wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy.

Here’s what Carl E. Volz, a self-described ‘crypto-skeptic’ lawyer and a partner at law firm gunnercooke in New York, has to say about the implications of this case — and what it means for the future of crypto in the United States.

The Biden-era panic gave way to Trump-era permissiveness — but both stem from the same problem: ignorance and instability.

The “MEV brothers” case is a hangover from the Biden-era hyper-skepticism about crypto. Looking back, I believe this case was born of a combination of ignorance and fear.

The Southern District of New York didn’t really understand what the brothers were doing, and that made them nervous. The Biden-era DOJ and SEC often investigated and prosecuted what they feared — or what they didn’t understand. Prosecutions like this one took the place of thoughtful, reasoned policy, to the detriment of the long-term health of the industry.

Given the zeal with which the Trump administration has pursued its aggressive crypto agenda, I half-suspected this case would be dropped before it went to trial. But it may have flown under the radar. Or perhaps the brothers didn’t know the right people. Whatever the reason, the prosecution persisted — and just the fact that the trial went forward will have an effect on the industry.

To me, the biggest impact will be the continued impression that the US isn’t a safe place to invest long-term in crypto or blockchain businesses. The wild swing from the Biden-era caution — almost panic — to the over-the-top permissiveness of the Trump administration already makes people in other countries nervous.

Clients I’ve talked to overseas are looking for stability — not a government that does a 180-degree turn every four or eight years. There’s already a perception that the Trump permissiveness will be reversed the minute a Democrat takes the White House, and that’s keeping long-term money on the sidelines of the crypto industry.

Plenty of people are buying memecoins and speculating on tokens, but that’s not contributing to the long-term health of the industry. To attract real capital and create sustainable growth, the US needs a carefully wrought approach that demonstrates thought and care. The current get-rich-quick atmosphere demonstrates instability, not strength.

Serious crypto investors want to know that rules will stay in place for the next couple of decades — not that they could change, even if for the better, every election cycle.

If Trump had ordered the case against the Peraire-Bueno brothers dropped after taking office, it would have provided the industry with a short-term sugar high. But that wouldn’t — and doesn’t — take the place of carefully considered industrial policy.

‘It may chill investment and innovation in the US’

And the fact that the case went forward despite Trump’s laissez-faire approach only reinforces that the Trump administration is as bad as the Biden administration was on crypto — no careful long-term plans, just running from fire to fire, adding gas or water without much thought about the long-term impact.

As for the implications of the trial, I reject the views of maximalists who say it’ll chill innovation in crypto. It may chill investment and innovation in the US, but few major players were putting money there anyway. The rest of the world is moving ahead without us, and plenty of companies and individuals will innovate — just elsewhere, avoiding any connection to the US altogether.

If the adults ever return to Washington and come up with a considered approach to crypto, those innovators will bring their products to the US — but those products and breakthroughs will not have been created here in the first place.

‘This trial is a symptom of a badly broken, short-sighted political system.’

Getting back to the nuts and bolts of the matter, I think the Justice Department pushed the envelope too far on this one. They indicted conduct they didn’t really understand, and when they dug into the facts, they found some juicy stuff they perceived as evidence of fraud. That juicy stuff could get them a conviction.

But on a purely legal basis, I don’t think what’s in the indictment constitutes wire fraud. A jury could conclude differently, but if it does, it’ll be because the brothers googled stupidly and talked too much, for too long, with the wrong people. Absent those salacious details, I doubt a jury would convict.

To sum it up, this trial is a symptom of a badly broken, short-sighted political system. And the fact that it proceeded despite a change in administrations just confirms that nobody in Washington seems overly concerned about diagnosing — let alone curing — the disease.