Epstein Files Reveal Alleged Early Investment in Coinbase

TheNewsCryptoPublicado a 2026-02-03Actualizado a 2026-02-03

Resumen

Epstein Files reveal that Jeffrey Epstein allegedly invested $3 million in Coinbase through Brock Pierce's Blockchain Capital in 2014. Documents suggest the deal may have secured him a meeting with co-founder Fred Ehrsam. A 2018 email indicates Epstein later sold half his stake back for around $11 million. Separately, Blockstream CEO Adam Back denied any financial ties to Epstein, though a document shows a co-founder discussed the firm's seed round with him.

The latest anticipation revolves around the Epstein Files, indicating a vast collection of documents associated with the case of American financier Jeffrey Epstein, which revealed that he made a $3 million investment in the crypto exchange Coinbase around 10 years ago.

According to the documents publicised by the U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein invested in Coinbase via Brock Pierce’s Blockchain Capital in 2014. A Bitcoin researcher, Kyle Torpey, mentioned that it is not clear if the deal really went through, but there are many discussions regarding investing in Coinbase in the files.

The buying supposedly arranged Epstein a face-to-face meeting with Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam. The leaked email screenshot revealed mentioning Jeff and Ehrsam, signalling Ehrsam might be aware of his involvement in Coinbase.

The Revealed Screenshot

Ehrsam wrote that I have a gap between noon and 3pm today, but again, it’s not critical for me, but it would be nice to meet him if suitable. Is it important for him, as per the screenshot. After four years, in 2018, one more email surfaced that confirmed that Epstein got his Coinbase allocation. It seems that he then sold 50% of the stake back to Blockchain Capital for about $11 million.

At the same time, the chief executive officer of Blockstream, Adam Back, pushed back against allegations from the Epstein Files concerning his continued connection with the convict. Back posted on X, writing that Blockstream has no direct or indirect financial connection with Jeffrey Epstein.

A document publicised by the U.S. DOJ corresponding to July 2014 revealed that Blockstream co-founder Austin Hill talked about the seed round of the firm with Epstein and Joi Ito, then director of the MIT Media Lab.

Adam Back also mentioned in his post that Blockstream met with Jeffrey Epstein, who was referred to at the time as a restricted partner in Ito’s fund.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

Trump Says He Was Not Involved in $500M Abu Dhabi WLFI Deal

TagsCEOCoinbaseDOJ

Lecturas Relacionadas

In-depth: The Foreign Guest Genspark

The article "The Foreign Guest: Genspark" investigates the identity and business practices of AI startup Genspark, which presents itself as a Palo Alto-based "AI Costco" offering a subscription bundle of over 70 models and numerous AI agent tools. Despite its official Silicon Valley narrative, Genspark's founding team has deep roots in Chinese tech giant Baidu, a history systematically downplayed in its branding. The company actively cultivates an image as an elite US firm, heavily publicizing partnerships and endorsements from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft, while distancing itself from the Chinese AI community and obscuring its connections to Chinese investors and open-weight models (like those from DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax) that power its services. Genspark's core strategy involves rapidly cloning and integrating successful AI product concepts (e.g., from Perplexity, Manus, Plaud) into its unified platform, supported by aggressive marketing, including Super Bowl ads and paid native content in publications like The Wall Street Journal. Critically, the article suggests a significant portion of its engineering and product development is conducted by a team in Beijing, operating outside its official US corporate structure. This duality allows Genspark to leverage Chinese talent and models for efficiency and cost reduction while constructing a public facade as a purely American success story. The piece concludes that Genspark's most effective agent is its own corporate identity, meticulously engineered to obscure its Chinese underpinnings and be perceived solely as a Silicon Valley company.

marsbitHace 42 min(s)

In-depth: The Foreign Guest Genspark

marsbitHace 42 min(s)

Debate: Korean Workers Fear Unemployment, While Musk Envisions a Society 'Without Work'?

While South Korean auto workers fear job losses from robotics, Elon Musk envisions a future where AI and robots render most work optional. This article explores the growing tension between immediate anxieties over automation and long-term visions of a post-work society. The piece begins with recent strikes at Hyundai's Korean plants, where unions, amid standard wage negotiations, also sought job guarantees against advancing robotics—specifically mentioning Boston Dynamics' Atlas. This reflects how anxiety about technological displacement is emerging even before robots are fully capable of replacing skilled labor on assembly lines. The author argues that while current robotics still struggle with the nuanced, experiential knowledge of veteran workers, the *perception* of imminent replacement is fueling social conflict prematurely. This modern "Luddite" sentiment is compared to the 19th-century English textile workers who smashed machines. Historically, Luddites weren't simply anti-technology; they were protesting the rapid devaluation of their skills and the unequal distribution of productivity gains. Similarly, today's workers ask who will bear the cost of transition and share in the new wealth created by machines. In contrast, figures like Elon Musk propose an optimistic endpoint: with AI and robotics driving extreme abundance, the link between work and survival could break. He suggests concepts like "Universal High Income" could allow society to share the technological bounty, transforming work from a necessity into a choice. The core challenge, however, lies in the transition. The author notes that technology's benefits diffuse slowly, while its disruptive costs—job losses, skill obsolescence—can be concentrated and immediate. The risk is a painful interim period where productivity gains are captured by a few before new social contracts, safety nets, and retraining systems are established. The conclusion calls for proactive governance. Just as past industrial revolutions gave rise to labor standards and social safety nets, the robotics era needs its own frameworks. These should address job transition support, distribution of productivity gains, safety liability, and ethical deployment. Embracing such "constraints" is not opposition to progress but a necessary step to ensure technology benefits society broadly. The discussion sparked by Hyundai's workers, therefore, is not premature but essential.

marsbitHace 55 min(s)

Debate: Korean Workers Fear Unemployment, While Musk Envisions a Society 'Without Work'?

marsbitHace 55 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片