Prosecutor Peter Davis argued that Eisenberg essentially commandeered the supply and demand mechanism, equating his actions to outright theft rather than legitimate borrowing. Before his capture, Eisenberg had returned $67 million to Mango Markets, a move described by Davis as an unsuccessful attempt to mitigate legal repercussions.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, the defense maintained that Eisenberg had operated within the legal boundaries and regulations of Mango Markets, risking his own funds in the process. However, the jury sided with the prosecution, highlighting a significant case of manipulation within the cryptocurrency market.
