Why Did Epstein Refuse Cryptocurrency Price Manipulation Trades

GateUser-7b078580 · 2026-02-28T19:23:56+00:00

The newly revealed Epstein documents show that he refused to participate in cryptocurrency price manipulation in 2018 due to ethical concerns. In contrast, Coinbase founder Armstrong's business strategy reflects differing views within the crypto community on ethics and community consensus.

GateUser-7b078580

2026-02-28 19:23:56

Abstract generation in progress

Recently uncovered Epstein documents reveal a little-known past. In August 2018, this complex investor faced a critical decision: whether to participate in artificially manipulating cryptocurrency prices. According to crypto journalist Kyle Torpey, Epstein ultimately chose to refuse, citing ethical concerns about such behavior.

Moral Boundaries: Rejecting Market Manipulation

In communications with Bitcoin developer Jeremy, Epstein clearly expressed his stance. He admitted to moral dilemmas regarding artificial interference in cryptocurrency prices. Although the transaction could be profitable, he ultimately decided to reject the collaboration. Notably, Epstein stated he preferred to invest in other projects, but only if he could do so without publicly acknowledging ethical issues—reflecting the crypto community’s sensitivity to market manipulation at the time.

Sharp Contrast: Different Business Ethics

Another revealing document is an email from Coinbase founder Brian Armstrong sent to investors in February 2016. In the message, Armstrong disclosed behind-the-scenes efforts to influence the development of the network. He indicated that the company was working covertly to sway the network’s direction, aiming to reduce the influence of so-called “early idealists” on Bitcoin’s development, and predicted an upcoming hard fork to 2MB blocks.

However, history tells a different story. The planned hard fork never materialized, and the last related attempt failed in fall 2017. The failure was due to the proposal being perceived as driven by corporate interests rather than community consensus, ultimately lacking broad community support.

These two documents present an interesting contrast: Epstein refused market manipulation due to ethical concerns, while Armstrong’s plans failed due to lack of community approval. This underscores that in the crypto world, deeply rooted in decentralization, mere capital and business interests are often insufficient to succeed.

BTC1.59%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.