Ethereum Researcher Virgil Griffith Freed

Ethereum Researcher Virgil Griffith Released from Prison

After serving nearly a year behind bars, Ethereum researcher Virgil Griffith has been released from prison. Griffith, who was arrested in February 2020 and charged with violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), was released from the Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania on Tuesday.

Griffith's arrest and subsequent imprisonment stemmed from his decision to attend a cryptocurrency conference in North Korea in 2019. At the time, the United States government deemed the trip a violation of sanctions against the rogue nation.

Griffith, who was a researcher at the Ethereum-based startup Omisego, was accused of sharing knowledge about nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles with North Korean officials during his visit. He was subsequently charged with violating the IEEPA, which prohibits the export of goods and services to countries under US sanctions.

Griffith's case drew widespread attention in the cryptocurrency community, with many arguing that his arrest and imprisonment were an attack on free speech and academic freedom. Supporters of Griffith, including prominent figures in the Ethereum community, argued that his work in North Korea was focused on blockchain technology and did not pose a threat to national security.

Griffith's release from prison comes after he served nearly 10 months of his original 63-month sentence. His release was reportedly facilitated by a reduction in his sentence, which was agreed upon by his legal team and federal prosecutors.

In a statement following his release, Griffith expressed gratitude to his supporters and emphasized his commitment to promoting peaceful and collaborative international dialogue. "I am grateful to be free once again and look forward to continuing my work in promoting blockchain technology and international cooperation," he said.

The release of Griffith from prison is seen as a victory for advocates of academic freedom and free speech, who argue that the government's actions in this case were an overreach. The case has also raised questions about the role of sanctions in restricting international dialogue and cooperation.