The Epstein files revive an old Bitcoin question: Who really created BTC?

The release of the Epstein files on the 30th of January has sent shockwaves through the financial and tech worlds.

Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a staggering 3.5 million pages of records, providing a sneak peek into how Jeffrey Epstein maintained a shadow network of influence long after his 2008 conviction.

Among the most bizarre revelations are his 2016 a ttempts to broker a deal involving the “founders of Bitcoin” and a new Middle Eastern currency.

The Sharia currency attempt

Deep within the DOJ dump, specifically in “Data Set 9”, investigators found a series of emails from October 2016.

In these messages, Epstein pitched a financial project to Saudi Arabian royals and high-level financiers.

He proposed a fiat currency called “the Sharia,” designed for internal use within the Muslim world.

The proposal was of a physical currency stamped with “In God We Trust,” mimicking the U.S. Dollar but tailored to Islamic religious sensibilities.

However, the shocking twist was the backend technology.

Epstein suggested a digital version of this currency powered by blockchain, claiming he was in direct contact with the “founders of Bitcoin” who were very excited about the project.

Multiple Satoshi theory

Additionally, Epstein’s use of the plural “founders” has reignited the long-running debate over the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.

For years, crypto enthusiasts have argued that Bitcoin [BTC] may have been created by a group rather than a single individual.

Although Epstein’s emails offer no definitive proof, they show that he actively tried to position himself as a gatekeeper to the anonymous creators of the world’s largest cryptocurrency.

Beyond the sensational emails, the files also reveal how Epstein sought to exert influence in more concrete ways.

Between 2013 and 2017, he donated approximately $525,000 to the MIT Media Lab, directing the funds toward the Digital Currency Initiative (DCI).

After the Bitcoin Foundation collapsed in 2014, the DCI became the primary paymaster for several Bitcoin Core developers.

While Epstein never controlled Bitcoin’s decentralized code, the records make that clear.

They also show that he operated within institutional circles where key discussions about the technology’s future were taking place.

Is crypto in danger?

Yet, the breather here is that despite the alarming headlines, crypto faces no real threat.

The 2026 DOJ release highlights Epstein’s exaggerated sense of influence rather than any genuine flaw in blockchain technology.

Needless to say, Bitcoin operates as an open-source system wherein thousands of independent developers actively review and maintain it.

This structure prevents any single donor, regardless of wealth or notoriety, from secretly altering the code or installing a backdoor.

Thus, the episode shows how power-seeking figures often try to attach themselves to emerging technologies, only to learn they cannot control them.

Final Thoughts

• Claims of knowing Bitcoin’s creators matter less than why such claims carried value in elite financial circles.
• The failed “Sharia” currency shows how people often misunderstand what new technologies are really designed to do.