XRP Origin Hidden Hand? Jeffrey Epstein's 3 Million Documents Reveal Secret Bitcoin Plan

The U.S. Department of Justice released Epstein files, among which a 2014 document mentions Jed McCaleb’s “Secret Bitcoin Project,” sparking controversy. Some believe it involves Ripple surveillance, but analysts point toward Stellar. An email from Blockstream’s founder urges halting funding, while Ripple’s CTO denies any direct contact.

2014 Document Sparks “Secret Bitcoin Project” Speculation

(Source: X)

In the Epstein files released by the Department of Justice, a document dated July 1, 2014, records an informant reporting to Epstein that Jed McCaleb was secretly promoting a Bitcoin-related project after leaving Mt. Gox exchange. This brief mention has ignited heated debate within the XRP community, with some supporters interpreting it as evidence that Epstein’s network was involved in early surveillance or influence over Ripple and XRP, implying hidden networks of control.

However, from a timeline perspective, this interpretation has clear flaws. Jed McCaleb co-founded Ripple Labs with Chris Larsen in 2012 and left the company in 2013 due to ideological differences. He then launched Stellar in July 2014. The “Secret Bitcoin Project” mentioned in the document nearly overlaps with Stellar’s launch, not Ripple’s early development. Many blockchain analysts believe this refers to preparations for Stellar, not Ripple, which had been active for over a year.

The use of the word “secret” is also worth examining. In 2014, cryptocurrencies were still niche; any new project before public announcement was often kept under wraps. Stellar maintained low profile during development until its official launch in July. Such confidentiality before launch was common in tech industries and does not necessarily imply malicious intent.

A more critical question is: what is the origin and background of this document? Who is the informant, and what is their relationship with Epstein? The files released by the DOJ do not provide these details. Without full context, it’s unsubstantiated to claim that XRP or Ripple has significant ties to Epstein based solely on this mention.

Blockstream Founder’s Email Reveals Early Crypto Community Divisions

Another more specific document is an email from Austin Hill, co-founder of Blockstream, sent in 2014 to Epstein and others. In this email, Hill explicitly states hostility toward Ripple and Stellar, believing these projects harm the crypto ecosystem, and urges major supporters to reduce or cease funding. Hill uses a vivid metaphor: supporting both Bitcoin and these competing networks is like “betting on two horses in the same race.”

This email’s importance lies not in proving Epstein controlled XRP but in illustrating early ideological splits within the crypto community. In 2014, Bitcoin purists viewed any blockchain project outside Bitcoin as heretical, especially those like Ripple that partnered with traditional financial institutions and used permissioned ledgers. Blockstream, focused on Bitcoin infrastructure, saw Ripple as a threat, reflecting the dominant “Bitcoin maximalist” attitude of the time.

Three Major Divisions in Early Crypto Camps

• Technical Approach: Proof of Work (Bitcoin) vs. Ripple’s consensus protocol
• Ideological Differences: Pure decentralization vs. cooperation with traditional finance
• Market Competition: Market share and developer resources

Hill’s email also reveals an intriguing fact: Epstein or his network showed some interest in cryptocurrencies in 2014. Whether as a potential investor, information collector, or out of curiosity, Epstein’s circle was tracking this emerging industry. But interest does not mean control; receiving lobbying emails does not imply active involvement in project operations.

From Hill’s perspective, he was trying to persuade Epstein to stop funding Ripple and Stellar, suggesting Epstein might have been funding or considering funding these projects at the time. But did such funding actually occur? How much? Did Epstein participate in technical or strategic decisions? These questions remain unanswered in the publicly available documents.

David Schwartz Clarifies and Community Divisions

In response to renewed controversy over these files, Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz quickly addressed the issue. He emphasized on social media that viewing XRP or Stellar Lumens supporters as enemies damages the entire crypto industry, and such attitudes only deepen unnecessary divisions. Schwartz explicitly states that there is no evidence in the current files linking Epstein directly to Ripple, XRP, or Stellar—no meetings, no transactions, no substantial cooperation.

Schwartz’s main point is to distinguish “interest” from “control.” He admits these files might only be “the tip of the iceberg,” and more may surface later, but urges the community to remain rational and cautious without concrete proof. Jumping to conclusions or spreading unverified conspiracy theories not only harms Ripple’s reputation but could also invite unwarranted regulatory scrutiny and public skepticism of the entire industry.

Many community members support Schwartz’s stance. They see the 2014 emails as reflecting early crypto industry competition and information exchange, not evidence of secret control networks. At that time, blockchain industry size was small, participants had close contacts, and information flow among projects was normal. Epstein, as a person with extensive connections and investment networks, was naturally tracking this sector.

However, some community members remain skeptical. They question why the Blockstream founder would specifically write to Epstein about Ripple funding, implying Epstein might have had greater influence in crypto than publicly known. These skeptics believe the released documents may indeed be just “the tip of the iceberg,” with more undisclosed links and transactions hidden in unreleased files.

How Historical Controversies Continue to Shape the XRP Narrative

This Epstein document controversy is not the first time XRP has been embroiled in disputes. Since its creation in 2012, Ripple and XRP have been at the center of ongoing debates over its business model and technical design. Bitcoin purists criticize Ripple for being too centralized and for collaborating with banks, which they see as contrary to crypto’s original ideals; supporters argue that working with traditional finance is necessary for real-world adoption.

In 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Ripple, accusing it of conducting an unregistered securities offering through XRP sales. The case was partially settled in 2023, but the controversy persists. Every news item involving Ripple or XRP—positive or negative—triggers intense debate, with supporters and critics often at odds.

The Epstein files add fuel to this ongoing controversy. Critics see these documents as confirming their long-held suspicions: Ripple was connected to “mysterious forces” from the start. Supporters dismiss it as baseless smear, a new attempt by competitors and Bitcoin maximalists to undermine XRP.

Beyond conspiracy theories, this episode reveals key features of early crypto development. In 2014, blockchain technology was just beginning to gain mainstream attention, with many projects emerging rapidly. Yet, ideological divides were already forming: Bitcoin maximalists insisted on decentralization and anti-censorship, while projects like Ripple took pragmatic approaches, seeking practical applications within existing financial systems. This split continues to influence industry evolution today.