All this to say, I just fail to say how this can be constructed as "changing the terms of the transaction". There was no legal agreement between parties and no existing precedent to treat this as a malicious attack at all.
All I see is a Wall Street establishment pulling strings in order to protect their investment, by asking for a sudden government oversight in the system that was built with the express goal of not requiring any government oversight.
Clearly, it has failed at that goal. This should not be surprising in the slightest.
Government gunna govern.
all these code is law folks are constantly exposed as just looking to get rich quick
Likely some inter-state commerce clause that gets used to bring many things under the purview of the feds. It may be more appropriate to ask how it was supposed to not be under the rule of law?
> these were transactions submitted to a blockchain created for the sole purpose of not being controlled by the government
Simply creating a blockchain with that intent in mind seems to be no more effective than a sovereign citizen ranting to a LEO that they are 'traveling by conveyance' in their car and thus not subject to traffic laws.
you used to be able to trick sandwich bots without having to rely on this level of hack, see for example:
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2021/03/22/bad-sandwich-defi-t...
so of course (smart) sandwich bot authors immediately started writing checks for poison tokens.
i'm honestly shocked that they're being prosecuted for this since it's a slight escalation on behavior that has evolved many times in ethereum's past.