Epstein Files Reveal Alleged Early Investment in Coinbase

TheNewsCrypto2026-02-03 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-02-03 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

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

İlgili Okumalar

The Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Super IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?

Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Mega IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare? The capital market in 2026 is witnessing a highly anticipated wave of tech IPOs, centered on SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Collectively valued at over $3.5 trillion, their potential listing represents one of the largest such waves in recent years. This raises concerns about market liquidity, valuation bubbles, and potential capital outflows from other assets like crypto. SpaceX's valuation narrative has shifted from rocket launches to becoming a global infrastructure play via its Starlink satellite network, which now drives most revenue. Despite ongoing losses, investors focus on its long-term growth potential. OpenAI and Anthropic represent the core productivity engines of generative AI. Their public listings would offer the first direct investment opportunity in large foundation model companies, potentially triggering a repricing within the AI sector. Market fears of a massive "capital drain" from these IPOs are likely overstated. Historical precedents like Alibaba and Saudi Aramco show that mega-listings primarily cause capital reallocation, not destruction, within the vast equities market. Systemic risk is rarely triggered by IPOs alone. For stock markets, short-term volatility and sector repricing are expected, especially for AI concept stocks. Long-term, these listings could reinforce the tech sector's importance. For crypto, direct competition for speculative capital exists, particularly affecting AI-themed tokens. However, crypto's trajectory remains more tied to its own cycles, macro liquidity, and Bitcoin ETF flows rather than a single IPO event. The real risk lies not in the listings themselves but in the sky-high growth expectations embedded in these valuations. If future revenue, profitability, or commercialization progress disappoints, significant valuation resets could follow, impacting high-growth tech stocks. Ultimately, the market's direction hinges on macroeconomic conditions and whether these companies can deliver on their ambitious promises.

链捕手7 dk önce

Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Super IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?

Title: Trillion-Dollar Valuations at Stake: Super IPOs of SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic – Tech Boom or Crypto Nightmare? TL;DR: A wave of mega-tech IPOs is approaching, featuring SpaceX (targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation), OpenAI (~$852B), and Anthropic (~$965B), with a combined potential valuation exceeding $3.5 trillion. This tests the market's pricing of innovation and sparks debate on liquidity impact. * **SpaceX**'s valuation is now driven more by its Starlink global communications infrastructure than its core rocket business. * **OpenAI & Anthropic** offer the first major public investment opportunities in foundational AI models, potentially repricing the entire AI sector. * Concerns about a market-wide "liquidity drain" are likely overblown; history shows large IPOs mainly cause fund reallocation, not disappearance, and rarely trigger systemic risk. * Crypto markets, especially some AI-themed tokens, may face short-term fund competition, but their long-term trajectory depends more on macro liquidity, regulation, and Bitcoin cycles. * The real risk lies not in the IPOs themselves, but in whether these companies can justify their sky-high valuations with future revenue growth and profitability. Unmet expectations could lead to significant repricing pressure. Ultimately, these IPOs represent a massive market pricing of next-gen tech infrastructure, not a prelude to a market crash. The broader market direction will be determined by macro conditions, corporate earnings, and risk appetite.

marsbit7 dk önce

Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Super IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?

marsbit7 dk önce

Who Will Take Over After SpaceX's IPO?

SpaceX is set to go public on June 12 with a $1.8 trillion valuation, but only about 5.56 billion shares (4.2% of the total) will be initially available for trading. Buy-side pressure is expected in three distinct waves. First, the IPO subscription at a fixed $135 per share, which is oversubscribed by nearly 4 times. Second, immediate secondary market trading post-listing. Third, and most significant, the forced buying by passive index funds. The Nasdaq 100 index has modified its rules to include SpaceX just 15 trading days after its IPO, despite its small float, which will compel hundreds of tracking funds to buy large quantities of stock. However, this initial supply shortage will not last. A staged lock-up release is designed for the approximately 54% of shares held by VCs, early employees, and other insiders (excluding Elon Musk's 42%, which is locked for 366 days). Releases begin after the Q2 earnings report, with subsequent unlocks at multiple intervals up to 180 days post-IPO. This means selling pressure from insiders will gradually increase throughout the latter half of the year. A key counterbalance is scheduled for mid-December during the Nasdaq 100's annual rebalancing. By then, the public float will have expanded significantly, forcing index funds to buy more shares, potentially providing institutional support after months of insider selling.

marsbit48 dk önce

marsbit48 dk önce

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

On June 11, Anthropic apologized not for a model failure, but for a lack of transparency. Its new Claude Fable 5 model was found to be secretly rerouting requests from users engaged in advanced AI model development to a weaker version, Opus 4.8, without any notification. The company's response—promising future notifications for such "downgrades"—was met with user skepticism. The article argues the core issue isn't technical but commercial: Anthropic's "safety" measures are primarily a business strategy. A key feature, the "intelligent safety classifier," marketed as user protection, is described as a tool for "competitive defense" to protect Anthropic's market lead by limiting rivals' research capabilities. This covert mechanism was designed for low "false positives," precisely targeting AI researchers. Anthropic's model involves a calculated three-step process: publishing alarming security research to amplify public anxiety, offering its Fable 5 model with a "safety classifier" as a premium-priced solution, and cashing in through a planned high-value IPO. This contrasts with OpenAI's more direct "tool-and-traffic" approach. The apology, merely changing a secret downgrade to a visible one, is seen as a business "patch" rather than a principled shift. The incident risks damaging Anthropic's "safest AI" reputation among the developer community, which underpins its valuation and appeal to government and corporate clients. Ultimately, the article concludes that for Anthropic, safety is a business, and the apology is merely customer service for that business.

marsbit1 saat önce

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

marsbit1 saat önce

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

**Summary:** A growing "anti-college" movement is gaining traction among elite circles in Silicon Valley, challenging the traditional value of a four-year university degree. Proponents argue that college has become an expensive, slow, and increasingly irrelevant waste of time, especially in the fast-paced tech world where opportunities pass by quickly. The movement is led by figures like billionaire Peter Thiel, who criticizes universities for high costs, ideological indoctrination, and stifling true innovation. His "Thiel Fellowship" pays young people to drop out and pursue ventures. Companies like Palantir Technologies (co-founded by Thiel) fuel this trend with programs like the "Meritocracy Fellowship," which offers high school graduates paid internships as an alternative to immediate college enrollment, promising a practical "Palantir Degree." Key drivers include: 1. **Economics:** Skyrocketing student debt versus the allure of immediate, high-paying tech jobs or startup funding. 2. **Technology:** AI and online tools lowering barriers to self-education and product development, making formal instruction seem inefficient. 3. **Culture:** A backlash against perceived "woke" ideology and DEI policies in universities, coupled with a belief that these institutions suppress meritocracy and masculine drive. The movement is notably male-dominated. Critics, like economist David Deming, warn against overgeneralizing from dropout success stories (survivorship bias). He emphasizes that genuine autodidacts are rare, corporate training is narrowly focused, and the "college wage premium" remains high for most people. University liberal arts education, he argues, builds adaptable problem-solving skills and broad perspectives. The debate highlights a deeper crisis in education. The core model of the modern university appears increasingly mismatched with the speed of the information age. The movement signals a shift in the locus of learning from institutional "education" to personal, active "learning" powered by the internet and AI. Ultimately, this may not mean the end of university, but rather a painful evolution. The future likely holds more hybrid, personalized, and lifelong learning pathways. The central question becomes: in a world changing faster than any curriculum, how do we best learn?

marsbit1 saat önce

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot

Futures