The post David Schwartz Comments as Old Epstein Claims Drag Ripple and XRP Back Into Focus appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News Unverified claims circulatingThe post David Schwartz Comments as Old Epstein Claims Drag Ripple and XRP Back Into Focus appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News Unverified claims circulating

David Schwartz Comments as Old Epstein Claims Drag Ripple and XRP Back Into Focus

3 min read
Ripple XRP email controversy

The post David Schwartz Comments as Old Epstein Claims Drag Ripple and XRP Back Into Focus appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

Unverified claims circulating online are once again linking early crypto figures, old emails, and the long-running XRP story. At the centre of the discussion is an alleged email from July 31, 2014, said to have been sent by tech entrepreneur Austin Hill, which raised concerns about Ripple and Stellar, a project founded by Jed McCaleb, who also co-founded Ripple and XRP.

What the Alleged Email Says

According to online posts, the email was addressed to Joichi Ito and Jeffrey Epstein, with the subject line “Stellar isn’t so Stellar.” In it, Hill allegedly warned that it was harmful for the ecosystem to have investors “backing two horses in the same race,” referring to Ripple and Stellar competing for the same financial backers.

Commentators claim this points to early power struggles in crypto’s formative years, though there is no proof of wrongdoing by any of the parties involved.

Claims Around MIT and Funding

The narrative goes further, alleging that Epstein had financial ties to academic institutions such as MIT’s Media Lab, where blockchain research was conducted. Public records have previously confirmed that Epstein donated money to MIT. However, claims that this funding influenced crypto markets, projects, or regulators remain unproven.

Some online discussions also try to connect these past associations to the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple, filed in 2020, and to former SEC chair Gary Gensler, who previously taught blockchain-related courses at MIT. While allegations of conflicts of interest are being circulated, there is no evidence that the SEC’s case against Ripple was driven by these academic or personal links.

  • Also Read :
  •   XRP Price Holds Support After Selloff as On-Chain Data Shows Reduced Downside Risk
  •   ,

David Schwartz Responds

Reacting to the resurfaced claims, David Schwartz, Chief Technology Officer at Ripple, shared a cautious but pointed view:

What Is Fact and What Is Not

Experts stress that many of these stories rely heavily on speculation, coincidence, and unverified interpretations rather than confirmed facts. The Ripple vs SEC case has unfolded mainly through court filings and judicial rulings, not leaked emails or historical associations.

As of now, there is no official confirmation that the alleged 2014 email or the relationships being discussed had any influence on XRP, Bitcoin, or regulatory decisions. Analysts caution investors to separate documented facts from online theories, especially during volatile market conditions when such narratives tend to spread quickly.

Never Miss a Beat in the Crypto World!

Stay ahead with breaking news, expert analysis, and real-time updates on the latest trends in Bitcoin, altcoins, DeFi, NFTs, and more.

bell icon Subscribe to News

FAQs

Could these claims affect investor confidence in Ripple or Stellar?

Speculative claims can temporarily influence sentiment, causing some investors to hesitate. However, long-term confidence typically relies on project fundamentals, regulatory clarity, and market performance rather than historical allegations.

Should investors worry about unverified crypto conspiracies?

Speculative stories can spread fast, especially in volatile markets, but confirmed facts should guide investment decisions.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

FCA komt in 2026 met aangepaste cryptoregels voor Britse markt

FCA komt in 2026 met aangepaste cryptoregels voor Britse markt

De Britse financiële waakhond, de FCA, komt in 2026 met nieuwe regels speciaal voor crypto bedrijven. Wat direct opvalt: de toezichthouder laat enkele klassieke financiële verplichtingen los om beter aan te sluiten op de snelle en grillige wereld van digitale activa. Tegelijkertijd wordt er extra nadruk gelegd op digitale beveiliging,... Het bericht FCA komt in 2026 met aangepaste cryptoregels voor Britse markt verscheen het eerst op Blockchain Stories.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 00:33
Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

The post Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. “It’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress,” writes Pipes. Getty Images Washington is addicted to taxing success. Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is floating a plan to skim half the patent earnings from inventions developed at universities with federal funding. It’s being sold as a way to shore up programs like Social Security. In reality, it’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress. Yes, taxpayer dollars support early-stage research. But the real payoff comes later—in the jobs created, cures discovered, and industries launched when universities and private industry turn those discoveries into real products. By comparison, the sums at stake in patent licensing are trivial. Universities collectively earn only about $3.6 billion annually in patent income—less than the federal government spends on Social Security in a single day. Even confiscating half would barely register against a $6 trillion federal budget. And yet the damage from such a policy would be anything but trivial. The true return on taxpayer investment isn’t in licensing checks sent to Washington, but in the downstream economic activity that federally supported research unleashes. Thanks to the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, universities and private industry have powerful incentives to translate early-stage discoveries into real-world products. Before Bayh-Dole, the government hoarded patents from federally funded research, and fewer than 5% were ever licensed. Once universities could own and license their own inventions, innovation exploded. The result has been one of the best returns on investment in government history. Since 1996, university research has added nearly $2 trillion to U.S. industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs, and launched more than 19,000 startups. Those companies pay…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 03:26
Trump foe devises plan to starve him of what he 'craves' most

Trump foe devises plan to starve him of what he 'craves' most

A longtime adversary of President Donald Trump has a plan for a key group to take away what Trump craves the most — attention. EX-CNN journalist Jim Acosta, who
Share
Rawstory2026/02/04 01:19