A decade-old electronic mail is reviving questions on whether or not tasks like Ripple posed a menace to Bitcoin’s improvement or merely served as opponents that some BTC backers sought to exclude.
The e-mail, dated July 31, 2014, seems to point out Austin Hill, then described as Blockstream’s chief govt, telling the late Jeffrey Epstein and different recipients that “Ripple, and Jed McCaleb’s new Stellar [were] unhealthy for the ecosystem.” Blockstream is a Bitcoin-focused blockchain expertise agency.
The correspondence resurfaced after the US Division of Justice printed tens of millions of pages of data beneath the Epstein Information Transparency Act, a disclosure that features emails, information, photos, and movies tied to previous investigations.
What was within the electronic mail?
The e-mail’s headline draw is clear (as Jeffrey Epstein is a poisonous magnet for consideration), and Blockstream’s present management has moved shortly to disclaim any ongoing monetary connection.
Nonetheless, the extra sturdy story is in regards to the sender’s premise moderately than the recipients’ notoriety.
Austin Hill argued that capital flowing into Ripple and Stellar wasn’t merely competitors. It was contamination. He considered these tasks as threats that might “harm” Bitcoin’s future by diluting investor alignment, developer focus, and narrative energy.
To many maximalists of that period, the “ecosystem” was not a broad crypto class. It was Bitcoin, plus the infrastructure, that made the flagship digital asset extra usable with out compromising its ethos.
Thus, this worldview “justified” the particular stress utilized within the electronic mail.
Nonetheless, XRP neighborhood members view the e-mail as proof that early Bitcoin insiders sought to divert capital from Ripple.
For context, XRP commentator Leonidas Hadjiloizou argued the e-mail reads like an try to stress buyers to “choose a horse” and to cut back or withdraw a Blockstream allocation if additionally they backed Ripple or Stellar.
In line with him:
“The e-mail to Epstein and Joichi Ito by Austin Hill was simply one other effort by Bitcoin maxis to struggle Ripple and Stellar.”
In the meantime, the resurfaced electronic mail has pulled in trendy Ripple voices who lived by these early battles.
Ripple CTO emeritus David Schwartz mentioned he “wouldn’t be in any respect stunned” if the e-mail is “the tip of a large iceberg,” arguing that:
“Hill felt that help for Ripple or Stellar made somebody an enemy/opponent. It appears fairly doubtless that Hill and others expressed comparable views to many different folks.”
In his view, standing towards the supporters of rival networks as enemies hurts everybody within the area.
Nonetheless, Schwartz additionally drew a boundary round what the e-mail doesn’t set up, noting there isn’t a proof of direct connections between Epstein and Ripple, XRP, or Stellar.
Is Ripple Actually Dangerous for the Ecosystem?
The irony of Hill’s 2014 warning is that the “harm” he feared has arguably materialized, as Ripple has develop into a dominant drive within the {industry}. In 2026, Ripple has not solely survived but additionally entrenched itself as a regulated pillar of the crypto infrastructure.
Nonetheless, this progress occurred with out the catastrophic penalties for Bitcoin that maximalists initially predicted.
In truth, Ripple’s evolution during the last decade means that the “ecosystem” was all the time destined to be bigger than simply Bitcoin.
The agency’s most vital milestone got here with the conclusion of its long-running battle with the SEC. The 2025 settlement, which noticed the corporate pay a fraction of the regulator’s unique demand, successfully cleared the regulatory cloud that had hung over the asset for years.
That authorized readability paved the best way for the very factor early Bitcoiners feared: deep institutional integration.
In the present day, the corporate seems to be much less like a “rip-off” and extra like a financial institution with main licenses worldwide.
Furthermore, Ripple has aggressively expanded its custody capabilities by buying Swiss-based Metaco and Normal Custody & Belief. It has additionally acquired main monetary platforms like GTreasury, Hidden Highway, and the stablecoin platform Rail.
Maybe the strongest rebuttal to the “unhealthy for the ecosystem” declare is the market’s acceptance of XRP as an institutional asset class.
The launch of XRP ETFs in late 2025, together with choices from issuers like Franklin Templeton, signaled that Wall Avenue not views the asset as “contamination.”
As an alternative, the inflows into these merchandise counsel that for contemporary buyers, the “ecosystem” shouldn’t be a zero-sum recreation between Bitcoin and funds networks. It’s a diversified portfolio the place each “horses” can run.
Will Bitcoin and Ripple neighborhood members ever finish their bickering?
Lengthy earlier than spot crypto ETFs and big-bank custody offers, the Bitcoin neighborhood fought public battles in boards over what counted as “good for the ecosystem.”
On Bitcointalk, one extensively circulated 2013 thread framed Ripple as opposite to Bitcoin’s objectives and criticized its construction and incentives, reflecting a pressure of skepticism that later hardened into the “maximalist” worldview.
These criticisms tended to cluster round a couple of themes: governance management, token distribution, whether or not a mission’s financial mannequin was “too company-led,” and whether or not its outreach to banks and regulators undercut Bitcoin’s political narrative.
Nonetheless, supporters of Ripple and Stellar argued that quicker settlement rails, decrease transaction prices, and a concentrate on funds had been sensible options moderately than ideological betrayals.
They contended that early Bitcoin discourse typically conflated “completely different design” with “existential menace.”
In the meantime, even when the 2014 electronic mail is primarily a time capsule, it maps onto a newer political and coverage battle that has shifted the Bitcoin-versus-Ripple debate from boards to lobbying.
In early 2025, Jack Mallers, the co-founder and CEO of Twenty One Capital, argued that Ripple was actively lobbying to stop a Bitcoin-only Strategic Reserve within the US whereas selling its centralized, corporate-controlled XRP token.
In line with him, XRP’s centralized nature conflicts with the objectives of a strategic BTC reserve which are “pro-industry, pro-jobs, and pro-technology.”
That debate grew to become extra concrete when President Donald Trump mentioned a US strategic crypto reserve would come with XRP alongside Bitcoin and different main tokens.
The announcement sharpened an already acquainted fault line: Bitcoin maximalists advocating a single-asset financial reserve versus a multi-asset framework that advantages giant US-linked token networks.
These points clarify why the Bitcoin and Ripple communities look like in outright loggerheads over the previous years, regardless of the belongings being two of the most well-liked cryptocurrencies globally.
Nonetheless, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse seems to be steering the XRP holders away from the “fights” by constantly urging cooperation and unity amongst {industry} gamers to assist the rising sector develop.
