Ripple, Stellar Show Up In New Epstein Files, Ex-CTO Schwartz Reacts

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-02-03Actualizado a 2026-02-03

Resumen

Newly released Jeffrey Epstein documents include a 2014 email from Blockstream co-founder Austin Hill that mentions Ripple and Stellar. In the email, Hill reportedly complained to Epstein and others about investors supporting competing projects, framing backers of Ripple or Stellar as "enemies/opponents" to his Bitcoin-centric ecosystem. Former Ripple CTO David Schwartz publicly responded, stating he knows of no direct connections between Epstein and either Ripple, XRP, or Stellar. He emphasized there is no evidence that anyone from these projects met with Epstein or his close associates. Schwartz criticized the "enemy/opponent" mindset as harmful to the entire crypto space and dismissed the notion of deeper involvement as speculative conspiracy. He also addressed a question about Ripple's for-profit structure versus Stellar's non-profit, revealing he had opposed the non-profit model early on, believing it seemed dishonest and borderline illegal. At the time of reporting, XRP was trading at $1.64.

Ripple and Stellar were pulled into a fresh round of social-media speculation this weekend after newly surfaced emails from the Epstein document release appeared to reference the two projects in a 2014 investor dispute. Former Ripple CTO David Schwartz pushed back publicly, saying he knows of no direct links between Epstein and either network, and framed the episode as another example of tribal politics bleeding into crypto.

Schwartz Reacts After Epstein Docs Mention Ripple, Stellar

The spark came from a screenshot circulating on X that shows an email chain in which Austin Hill (co-founder of Blockstream) complained to a group of high-profile recipients, including Epstein, about investors allocating capital across competing projects. According to Schwartz, the document “is an email from Austin Hill to Jeffrey Epstein explaining that Hill felt that support for Ripple or Stellar made someone an enemy/opponent,” adding that Hill likely shared similar views “to many other people.”

As the image spread, some posts characterized the mere inclusion of Ripple and Stellar in the email as evidence of deeper involvement. Schwartz responded with a message that tried to separate inflammatory framing from what the document actually shows.

“I don’t know of any connections between Jeffrey Epstein and Ripple, XRP, or Stellar. [I don’t know of] any evidence anyone at Ripple or Stellar ever met with Epstein or anyone closely connected to him,” he wrote. “There are some indirect ties between Epstein and people connected to Bitcoin in various ways, but that’s probably true of most very wealthy people.”

Source: X @JoelKatz

Schwartz’s first post on the thread captured the mood of the day, both suspicion and a reluctance to feed it. “I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this is just the tip of a giant iceberg,” he wrote while linking to the DOJ-hosted file. He later argued the more corrosive issue was the “enemy/opponent” mindset, writing that “we really are all in this together and this kind of attitude hurts everyone in the space.”

In the underlying 2014 email described in the source material, Hill is portrayed as objecting to backers funding multiple “horses” at once, treating support for Ripple or Stellar as hostile to the bitcoin-centric “ecosystem” he was building at Blockstream. Reports summarizing the chain say it was sent to Joichi Ito, Epstein, and Reid Hoffman, and included language that investors in both camps were “backing two horses in the same race.”

The resurfaced email also revived an older fault line in how early projects structured themselves. In response to a user asking about Ripple versus Stellar’s nonprofit posture, Schwartz said the idea was debated early on and that he opposed it.

“We discussed it in the early days. I was strongly against it because it seemed dishonest and borderline illegal to have a non-profit whose success was so tied to the gains of private parties,” he wrote. “It felt, at least to me, like Walmart creating a non-profit to help educate people about how much money they could save by shopping at Walmart.”

At press time, XRP traded at $1.64.

XRP holds above the 0.618 Fib, 1-week chart | Source: XRPUSDT on TradingView.com

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat sparked the recent social-media speculation involving Ripple and Stellar?

AThe speculation was ignited by a screenshot of a 2014 email chain from the Epstein document release, in which Blockstream co-founder Austin Hill complained to Jeffrey Epstein and others about investors allocating capital across competing projects like Ripple and Stellar.

QHow did former Ripple CTO David Schwartz respond to the allegations of connections between Epstein and Ripple/Stellar?

ADavid Schwartz publicly stated that he knows of no direct connections between Jeffrey Epstein and Ripple, XRP, or Stellar, and that he was unaware of any evidence that anyone at Ripple or Stellar had ever met with Epstein or anyone closely connected to him.

QWhat was the main complaint in Austin Hill's 2014 email as described in the article?

AIn the email, Austin Hill objected to investors funding multiple competing projects simultaneously, characterizing support for Ripple or Stellar as being hostile to the bitcoin-centric 'ecosystem' he was building at Blockstream, and referred to it as 'backing two horses in the same race.'

QWhat did David Schwartz identify as the more corrosive issue in the crypto space, beyond the Epstein speculation?

ASchwartz argued that the more corrosive issue was the 'enemy/opponent' mindset, stating that 'we really are all in this together and this kind of attitude hurts everyone in the space.'

QWhat was David Schwartz's stated position on Ripple adopting a non-profit structure in its early days?

ASchwartz said he was strongly opposed to the idea of Ripple becoming a non-profit because he felt it seemed dishonest and borderline illegal to have a non-profit whose success was so tied to the gains of private parties, comparing it to 'Walmart creating a non-profit to help educate people about how much money they could save by shopping at Walmart.'

Lecturas Relacionadas

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

Apple Pays Rent Too: The Two-Way Flow of "Traffic Tax" and "AI Capability Rent" Between Tech Giants For over two decades, Google has paid Apple an estimated $20 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Safari, a "traffic tax" for a critical user entry point. However, in 2026, the direction of this cash flow partially reversed. Apple agreed to pay Google roughly $1 billion per year to license its Gemini AI models, as Apple's own models reportedly struggled with complex tasks. This creates a unique dynamic: Apple acts as the "landlord" in the established search ecosystem, collecting rent from Google for access. Simultaneously, in the emerging AI arena, Apple becomes the "tenant," paying Google for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities it cannot currently match internally. While Apple claims its new models are "distilled" from Gemini outputs and contain "not a drop" of Google's original code, core dependencies remain. Its knowledge base is refined using Gemini's outputs, and its most powerful cloud model runs on Google's infrastructure. Apple has structured the deal as non-exclusive, allowing it to theoretically switch AI suppliers—a hedge against over-reliance. The future hinges on whether advanced AI models become a commodity (cheap and abundant) or remain a concentrated, scarce resource (expensive and controlled by few). Apple is betting on the former, leveraging its massive device ecosystem to be a powerful, choosy customer. If the latter proves true, its bargaining power could erode. This power dynamic is extending to developers. Apple, Google, and WeChat are all pushing for apps to expose their core functions as standardized "actions" or "intents" that their respective AI assistants (Siri, Gemini, WeChat AI) can directly call. The new scarce resource is no longer just app store visibility, but "being selected by the AI." The currency of "rent" has changed from a 30% revenue share to ceding control over how users interact with an app's functions.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

With the excitement around SpaceX's recent public listing reigniting interest in the US stock market, Chinese investors face significant challenges accessing compliant and convenient trading channels following regulatory actions against major online brokers. This article explores the available options, highlighting their risks and limitations. Traditional paths for US stock investments remain problematic. Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) and Listed Open-Ended Fund (LOF) products, while compliant, suffer from high fees, significant purchase premiums, and a very limited selection of assets. Small, unregulated offshore brokers pose substantial risks, including potential insolvency. While secure, VIP accounts at banks in Hong Kong or Singapore require high minimum deposits (often 1-2 million RMB) and in-person visits, placing them out of reach for most retail investors. The article positions cryptocurrency exchanges, specifically their TradFi (traditional finance on-chain) offerings, as a compelling alternative. Platforms like WEEX are noted for providing access to a wide range of US stocks and ETFs, including SpaceX (SPCXON), through tokenized assets. This method offers advantages such as a single account for both crypto and traditional assets, USDT-based settlement avoiding fiat complexities, flexible leverage, and robust risk management. To attract users, WEEX is promoting a "First Trade Guarantee" campaign. Running from June 15 to July 8 (UTC+8), it features a $30,000 prize pool. Users who trade $500 worth of US stock contracts can qualify for a guarantee on their first eligible trade: 100% loss coverage up to $30 or a 20% bonus on profits up to $30. The campaign is presented as a low-risk opportunity for both crypto natives and traditional investors to experience US stock trading.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

How Hard Is It to Make a Chip? A Division Error Cost $475 Million Chip expert Shi Kan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a popular tech creator, explains the immense challenges of chip development. Chips are foundational to modern technology, but their creation is extraordinarily difficult. The journey from sand to a functional chip involves complex design and manufacturing, but a critical bottleneck is verification—ensuring the design works flawlessly before costly production. A single, undetected bug can have catastrophic consequences, as illustrated by the infamous 1994 Intel Pentium FDIV bug. A flaw in the floating-point division unit forced a recall costing $475 million. Unlike software, chips cannot be easily patched after manufacture, making "first-time success" paramount. However, industry surveys show only 24% of chip projects achieve this; over three-quarters require at least one costly re-spin due to design flaws. Verification has thus become the dominant phase, consuming up to 70% of the design cycle. The core challenge is a "verification impossible triangle" between high performance, good debuggability, and low cost. Exhaustively verifying a modern CPU core could take 15,000 years with software simulation, or 30 years with advanced hardware emulation—timeframes utterly impractical for development. Despite being essential, verification is often seen as unglamorous "dirty work," receiving less academic attention than fields like AI. Shi and his team are tackling this by developing an agile verification research framework called ENCORE, based on FPGA technology, to improve verification efficiency and debug capability. Beyond research, Shi engages in public science communication through long-form video content, aiming to demystify chip technology, AI, and computer science. He argues for the value of pursuing "hard and long-term" endeavors, whether in the meticulous world of chip verification or in creating substantive educational content, believing such sustained effort is likely the right path forward.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片