Bitcoin and the Crypto Community Stained by Epstein

In his emails, Epstein spoke highly of the idea behind Bitcoin and repeatedly discussed the cryptocurrency’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, in a positive light.

Unfortunately, Epstein’s interest in cryptocurrency dealt a serious blow to the industry after the publication of the latest files related to his case.

To the surprise of many in the crypto industry, the businessman turned out to be deeply involved in the life of the digital asset market. The documents mention numerous prominent figures from the crypto community, including the following:

This list is far from complete. Some of the individuals mentioned in Epstein’s correspondence deserve separate discussion.

Many observers concluded that Epstein was interested in harming Ripple. These assumptions gave rise to a pro-XRP and anti-BTC movement. As a result, calls appeared on social media urging users to convert Bitcoins into Ripple’s cryptocurrency.

The documents also contain information suggesting that Jeffrey Epstein invested $3 million in the Coinbase crypto exchange in 2014, at a company valuation of $400 million.

Fred Ehrsam, Coinbase co-founder and then president, was allegedly aware of the deal. Its organization was reportedly handled by Brock Pierce and the Blockchain Capital fund, which specializes in investments in blockchain projects.

The crypto community quickly linked Epstein’s interest in Coinbase to XRP’s later problems. According to industry representatives, mutually beneficial ties with the businessman became the reason the exchange removed XRP from its listings at the time. Officially, the delisting was explained by claims from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission against the project. Crypto investors are convinced this was merely a pretext. In their view, Epstein’s involvement may also explain why Coinbase delayed XRP’s relisting for so long.

Interesting fact. Within the crypto community, there is a theory that Ethereum may have been the main beneficiary of XRP’s delisting from Coinbase. Jeffrey Epstein’s correspondence mentioned discussions involving Brock Pierce and Fred Ehrsam. Supporters of this theory point to close ties between Paradigm, the Sequoia Capital venture fund, and the Ethereum ecosystem, suggesting a potential conflict of interest. From this, they conclude that the suspension of XRP trading on Coinbase after the SEC lawsuit may have been an attempt to support ETH.

Another theory claims that Epstein exerted pressure on Ripple through Gary Gensler, who previously served as SEC chairman. Allegedly, the project began to pose a threat to other market participants and was targeted through regulatory pressure.

Many believe the Ripple team now has sufficient grounds to pursue legal action in light of the newly revealed circumstances.

The published files also mention Blockstream, a company engaged in developing infrastructure and technologies for Bitcoin. Epstein’s connection with it began in 2014. He participated in an early funding round, investing approximately $50,000 through a fund associated with the MIT Media Lab, without direct involvement in the company.

Blockstream CEO and well-known Bitcoin developer Adam Back confirmed this episode but emphasized that the interaction ended there. The fund later sold its stake due to a conflict of interest. As a result, Epstein likely had no influence on either Blockstream’s operations or Bitcoin’s development. Even so, many members of the crypto community directed accusations at both the company and Adam Back.

Crypto investors noted that Epstein spoke positively about Back in his emails. In their view, this attitude may have resulted from personal communication between the parties. After the files were released, members of the crypto community demanded explanations from Back and called on Blockstream to publicly disclose all information about its relationship with the businessman.

Adam Back was not the only Blockstream figure mentioned in the Epstein files. The documents also reference the company’s co-founder, Austin Hill. In correspondence from the early 2010s, Hill discussed competition between various crypto projects, including Ripple and Stellar, and the potential impact of investments in those projects on Bitcoin’s development. Some crypto enthusiasts interpreted this correspondence as suggesting that Hill attempted to encourage Epstein to increase his investment in Blockstream.

Interesting fact. A related theory suggests that Epstein’s interest in Blockstream reflected an attempt to gain control over Bitcoin development. Some supporters of this view claim the businessman succeeded, arguing that Bitcoin development was effectively funded with Epstein’s money.

Unfortunately, Epstein’s interest in cryptocurrency ultimately worked against BTC. Although the documents contain no evidence that the businessman ever used the coin, many believe that mere mentions and proven connections with members of the crypto community are enough to justify a boycott of Bitcoin.

On social media, a derogatory reworking of the cryptocurrency’s name began circulating: “Pedocoin,” a reference to Epstein’s criminal legacy. At the time of writing, numerous posts appeared on X with the hashtag #Pedocoin, calling on users to abandon BTC in favor of other cryptocurrencies.

Some members of the crypto community even believed the theory that Epstein himself was Satoshi Nakamoto. This claim is based on evidence of his early interest in cryptocurrency and his close ties with certain industry figures.

According to user reports, some investors began selling their BTC. Their logic was simple: if Epstein created Bitcoin, then the cryptocurrency is inherently evil and should be discarded. However, many participants in the crypto community consider the idea of Epstein’s involvement in Bitcoin’s creation to be complete nonsense.

Some industry representatives believe that the reputational damage caused by the Epstein case could ultimately undermine the idea of forming national crypto reserves based on Bitcoin.

Despite Epstein’s clear interest in cryptocurrency, the files contain no evidence that he used it for any payments. The irony is that regulators have spent years attempting to tarnish the crypto community’s reputation by pointing to crypto’s popularity among criminals. At first glance, cryptocurrency would have been an ideal tool for Epstein’s activities, yet he did not use it. Members of the crypto community believe the blockchain itself is the reason.

The technology records information about all transfers. The decentralized nature of the Bitcoin network does not allow data manipulation. If blockchain analysts had obtained even a single wallet address belonging to the businessman, they could have traced many illegal transactions and uncovered numerous crimes using tools such as BitOK’s Graf.

Unfortunately, the Epstein files contain neither wallet addresses nor evidence of cryptocurrency transactions carried out by him. At the same time, the documents include numerous references to transactions conducted through JP Morgan.

JP Morgan is the world’s largest bank by market capitalization. Members of the crypto community are convinced that Epstein relied on traditional financial institutions rather than decentralized cryptocurrency because it is easier to conceal financial trails that way.

In addition to JP Morgan, the documents also mention HSBC and Deutsche Bank. Epstein used conventional banks for payments and asset storage.

The businessman’s preference for traditional banks reignited discussions about the transparency and security of blockchain transfers compared to operations conducted through credit institutions. Had Epstein’s circle relied on Bitcoin, investigators today would have had a far easier time untangling the web of criminal cases connected to him.

Epstein’s interest in cryptocurrency ultimately created serious problems for many members of the crypto community and investors. While crypto companies mentioned in the correspondence are attempting to rehabilitate their reputations, many BTC holders are selling a cryptocurrency that is increasingly viewed as toxic.

The BitOK editorial team will continue to monitor the situation.