Reddit Posts
Mentions
Here’s what’s happening: The biggest red flag is how close Epstein was to Bitcoin funding channels, and early development circles. Here are the main links. MIT Funding Epstein sent $850,000 to MIT between 2002 and 2017. Part of these funds supported the MIT Digital Currency Initiative, the group that paid Bitcoin Core developers during a funding crisis. Developer Connection: The DCI was paying people like Gavin Andresen and Wladimir van der Laan when the Bitcoin Foundation ran out of money. Epstein visited MIT nine times. He met staff privately. His name was hidden internally. They called him “Voldemort.” The Manhattan Meeting Emails show a meeting inside Epstein’s mansion with: Brock Pierce (early Bitcoin investor, co-founder of Tether) Larry Summers (former US Treasury Secretary) They discussed Bitcoin long before it became mainstream. Summers said Bitcoin had “opportunities,” but he worried about his reputation if the price collapsed. Steve Bannon Connection: In 2018 Epstein emailed Bannon asking how crypto taxes worked. He wanted advice on receiving coins, paying with coins, distributing coins, and avoiding campaign finance rules. Bannon replied “On it” and connected him to FEC experts and crypto veterans. Early Crypto Research: Epstein’s Amazon logs show he bought books on Bitcoin, Ethereum, blockchain, and negotiation strategy. This was in 2017, while he was trying to rebuild his network. These five links alone show Epstein had access to developers, regulators, politicians, donors, and early crypto investors. And none of this was public until now. The emails show: -MIT underreported the donations. -Epstein visited through back doors. -Meetings were not logged. -Senior MIT officials approved the money privately. -Bitcoin developers were funded during the same period. None of this proves Epstein controlled anything in Bitcoin. But it shows he was closer to the ecosystem than anyone imagined.
Here’s what’s happening: The biggest red flag is how close Epstein was to Bitcoin funding channels, and early development circles. Here are the main links. MIT Funding Epstein sent $850,000 to MIT between 2002 and 2017. Part of these funds supported the MIT Digital Currency Initiative, the group that paid Bitcoin Core developers during a funding crisis. Developer Connection: The DCI was paying people like Gavin Andresen and Wladimir van der Laan when the Bitcoin Foundation ran out of money. Epstein visited MIT nine times. He met staff privately. His name was hidden internally. They called him “Voldemort.” The Manhattan Meeting Emails show a meeting inside Epstein’s mansion with: Brock Pierce (early Bitcoin investor, co-founder of Tether) Larry Summers (former US Treasury Secretary) They discussed Bitcoin long before it became mainstream. Summers said Bitcoin had “opportunities,” but he worried about his reputation if the price collapsed. Steve Bannon Connection: In 2018 Epstein emailed Bannon asking how crypto taxes worked. He wanted advice on receiving coins, paying with coins, distributing coins, and avoiding campaign finance rules. Bannon replied “On it” and connected him to FEC experts and crypto veterans. Early Crypto Research: Epstein’s Amazon logs show he bought books on Bitcoin, Ethereum, blockchain, and negotiation strategy. This was in 2017, while he was trying to rebuild his network. These five links alone show Epstein had access to developers, regulators, politicians, donors, and early crypto investors. And none of this was public until now. The emails show: -MIT underreported the donations. -Epstein visited through back doors. -Meetings were not logged. -Senior MIT officials approved the money privately. -Bitcoin developers were funded during the same period. None of this proves Epstein controlled anything in Bitcoin. But it shows he was closer to the ecosystem than anyone imagined.
Thank god we have an independent nonpartisan FEC who will certainly get to the bottom of this
Because it circumvents FEC regulations. It’s accomplishing indirectly what law forbids directly. Here, Trump’s donors will make money for giving him money. If you donate to a PAC, you get influence but not direct remuneration.
Yeah, he was playing supporting Democrats while Biden was in power. But the truth is different when you look deeper: * [**Sam Bankman-Fried Floated ‘Coming Out’ as a Republican on Tucker Carlson** After FTX Collapse SBF's brainstorming notes included lines like **"Come out against the woke agenda."**](https://gizmodo.com/sbf-floated-coming-out-republican-tucker-carlson-1851340731) (March 15, 2024) * [**Sam Bankman-Fried Wants a Trump Pardon**. Sadly, There’s a Good Chance He’ll Get It. The disgraced **crypto fraudster appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show** to make his case.](https://slate.com/technology/2025/03/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-tucker-carlson-trump-pardon-crypto.html) (March 10, 2025) * [**SBF claims he gave tens of millions in untraceable donations to Republicans: “All my Republican donations were dark,”** he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. ](https://time.com/6241262/sam-bankman-fried-political-donations/)(December 14, 2022)
RFK got over 1 million signatures from the electorate to be on the ballot in all 50 states. Democrats engaged in frivolous lawfare suing him in over 20 states to take him off the ballot, stopping him from campaigning for 2 months and draining campaign resources by keeping him in courts in various states. The DNC and RNC candidates are automatically allowed on all ballots and in the case of the DNC candidate, no one even voted for the candidate in a primary. There was no primary at all. Ross Perot was the last independent who got on all the ballots. After Perot, they made it near impossible for an independent. RFK polled up to 27% as an independent, higher than Perot during the 1992 debates. He was over 15% threshold in 7 polls prior to the debate but the two parties colluded with CNN to keep RFK out of the June debate. It was flagrantly corrupt. You can look at the people on the FEC board. There are only democrats and republicans. The only thing they agree on is making it impossible for a third party/independent to compete.
I was actually mostly engaging with his source but I also kinda stated the obvious. Dunno about sourcing common knowledge - but I'll give you this that lays it out fairly plainly for ya. https://wp.lancs.ac.uk/finec2023/files/2023/01/FEC-2023-017-Daniel-Rabetti.pdf Hope that helps. Found it on Google.