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

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-02-03Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-03

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.'

Пов'язані матеріали

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

"The Inevitable Cycle: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup – What is Ethereum's Endgame?" For years, the Ethereum community grappled with concerns that L2s were fragmenting the ecosystem and eroding L1's value. While L2s provided cheaper execution, they also splintered liquidity and the unified user experience of a single chain. This has prompted a fundamental reassessment of the relationship between L1 and L2. Ethereum's roadmap is evolving. The "Scale" initiative merges L1 and L2 expansion into a holistic framework. L1 itself is advancing with higher gas limits, statelessness, and zkEVM verification, no longer content to be just a low-throughput settlement layer. Consequently, the primary value proposition of L2s is shifting from merely providing cheap blockspace to offering L1 cannot easily provide: application-specific optimizations, privacy features, and flexible governance models. L2s are becoming a spectrum of execution environments with varying degrees of security inheritance from Ethereum. A critical challenge in this multi-chain future is interoperability. The vision is to make Ethereum "feel like one chain again." This relies on advancements in native account abstraction (like EIP-7702) and intent-based architectures (Open Intents Framework), where users declare desired outcomes, and solvers handle the complex cross-chain execution. Furthermore, shortening Ethereum's finality time from minutes to seconds is crucial, as it underpins trust between chains for bridges, stablecoins, and cross-chain applications. Perhaps the most provocative idea is that Ethereum L1 itself could become a form of "its own Rollup." As zkEVM and proof systems mature, high-performance nodes could execute transactions and generate validity proofs. Regular validators would then verify these proofs instead of re-executing all transactions. This blurs the traditional L1/L2 hierarchy, making "Rollup" more of a general execution-verification architecture. Native Rollup aims to integrate L2 validation more directly into the Ethereum protocol, allowing L2s to inherit L1's security more fully and move away from reliance on security councils. In the end, L2s are not destined to replace L1 or be made obsolete by it. The likely future is a unified system where diverse execution environments—each optimized for specific use cases like DeFi, gaming, or privacy—coexist. They will share a common foundation of security, liquidity, and verifiable state, seamlessly connected to restore a cohesive user experience. The next phase for Ethereum is not just about scaling through separation, but about intelligently reintegrating what was separated back into a coherent whole.

链捕手9 хв тому

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

链捕手9 хв тому

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

The era of fragmented AI agents is ending. Over the past month, China's tech giants—Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance—have simultaneously shifted strategy: instead of launching new, standalone AI agents, they are consolidating their various agent projects into unified "super workbenches." Tencent integrated its QClaw teams into WorkBuddy, a strategic product hailed as a potential third flagship after QQ and WeChat. Alibaba is merging its QoderWork, Wukong, and MuleRun agents into a new "Qianwen Office" platform under DingTalk's leadership. ByteDance rebranded its TRAE SOLO coding agent to TRAE Work, signaling a broader focus on workflow collaboration. This convergence marks a pivotal industry consensus. The initial exploration phase, where companies rapidly built numerous overlapping agents for different scenarios, proved costly and inefficient. With open-source tools eroding technical barriers, competition has shifted from agent creation to resource consolidation and cost control. Historically, platform wars are won not by creating more products, but by simplifying them—as seen with browsers unifying web access and super-apps consolidating services. Now, the "super workbench" aims to become the unified AI entry point for work. This reflects a deeper market realization: the primary audience for AI is no longer just programmers (a market in the tens of millions) but all knowledge workers (a market of billions). The real opportunity lies in augmenting everyday tasks—managing emails, documents, data, and meetings—across the entire workday. The core battleground is becoming control over the primary AI entry point that employees use daily. Tencent's WorkBuddy leverages WeChat and Tencent Docs; Alibaba's Qianwen Office taps into DingTalk's organizational data; ByteDance's TRAE Work integrates with Feishu's workflows. Whoever owns this "super workbench" gains strategic control over orchestrating enterprise data and APIs. This shift is redefining enterprise software. Traditional SaaS applications, valued for their user interfaces, will recede into the background. Their core functionalities will be exposed as standardized "Skills" or APIs for the super workbench's agents to invoke. Software value will shift from selling user seats to charging based on API calls and outcomes delivered. The evolution of agents is moving through clear stages: first as novel standalone products, then as consolidated primary work entry points, and finally as pervasive, invisible capabilities embedded into the digital fabric. The recent moves by major tech firms signal the transition from the first stage into the second, accelerating toward the third. In the end, the most successful agent technology may become invisible—like electricity or the HTTP protocol—a fundamental, unnamed infrastructure powering work itself.

marsbit37 хв тому

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

marsbit37 хв тому

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit52 хв тому

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit52 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片