Epstein, MIT, and Bitcoin: Follow the Money

A chronicle of the internal warnings overlooked while MIT sustained its funding relationship with Epstein.

Jeffrey Epstein did not just collect powerful friends. He collected institutions. Somewhere between his island and his Manhattan townhouse, his attention landed on something most of the world still barely understands: the ideological and technical backbone of cryptocurrency.

This is not a story about Epstein buying Bitcoin. It is worse. It is about how a convicted sex offender used philanthropy as a weapon to infiltrate MIT, the academic home for Bitcoin’s core developers, and how he then linked up with Steve Bannon to build crypto schemes described in official documents as opaque and built to dodge regulators. In return, Bannon helped build a political shield to keep the #MeToo movement away from Epstein for as long as possible.

The emails exist. The donations are documented. The timelines match.

The picture is ugly because it shows how easily decentralized systems still depend on the same old corruptible chokepoints.

After the 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor, Epstein had a straightforward problem: elite circles no longer wanted to be seen with him. His answer was simple. Use money like bait. Cast lines into top universities, see who bites, find the institution willing to look away from a sex offender label in exchange for donations.

MIT bit.

From the early 2000s into the late 2010s, Epstein sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to the school. The real test came after the conviction, when he shifted focus to AI, blockchain, and digital currency. These were young fields, with weak governance and a culture that often confused being disruptive with ignoring basic ethics.

Professor Seth Lloyd became the first live experiment.

In 2012, Lloyd accepted two unsolicited donations from Epstein. The official MIT review later said Lloyd knowingly helped Epstein test whether the school’s safeguards could be bypassed. This was not a random slip. It was a pilot program for institutional compromise. The checks cleared, no real outrage followed, and Epstein had his answer: MIT could be worked.

Next came Joi Ito, head of the MIT Media Lab.

Ito became the point man for Epstein’s post-conviction giving. He hosted Epstein on campus again and again. Senior administrators knew about Epstein’s record. Instead of cutting him off, they built an informal arrangement that let the school keep the money while pretending the moral issue was handled somewhere in the paperwork.

After the scandal finally surfaced, the internal report called this a series of serious errors in judgment.

Plain language: they knew, and they took the cash anyway.

In the middle of this relationship, in 2015, the Media Lab launched the Digital Currency Initiative. The timing mattered. The Bitcoin Foundation had fallen apart. Core development was underfunded and ad hoc. The DCI stepped in as a kind of institutional safe harbor for the people maintaining the Bitcoin codebase: Gavin Andresen, Wladimir van der Laan, Cory Fields.

The DCI tried to do one thing right. It set up a dedicated Bitcoin Developer Fund with named donors and clear rules that funders would not influence developers. That pool, on paper, stayed clean.

But the DCI did not float in a vacuum. It lived inside the Media Lab. The labs, offices, salaries, and basic stability that made the DCI possible were paid for by Media Lab sponsors.

Including Jeffrey Epstein.

For years, crypto purists jumped in here with the same defense: the code is untouched, no harm, move on. As more documents and emails have surfaced, that argument has become much harder to sustain.

One of the top tech institutions on the planet, a place that marketed itself as a kind of neutral guardian of digital innovation, knowingly took money from a convicted pedophile and used it to support the environment where Bitcoin’s core work happened. The institution that wrapped Bitcoin in academic legitimacy turned out to be for sale.

Standing next to the marquee, posing as a patron of cutting-edge research, laundering his name through proximity to innovation. That part worked.

If MIT shows how easy institutional capture can be, the Bannon link shows something cruder: power trading.

Emails released by Congress show regular contact between Epstein and Steve Bannon in 2018 and 2019. This was not small talk. Bannon treated cryptocurrency as a kind of economic insurgency, talked up revolutionary potential, raged about central banks, and praised crypto founders as visionaries. He understood token sales. He pushed ideas for national cryptocurrencies tied to assets. He was exactly the ideological and political bridge Epstein needed.

Epstein offered Bannon money, access, introductions, and crypto structures designed to be hard for regulators to follow. In return, Bannon helped build political cover. Documents describe Epstein being told this alliance could help hold off Time’s Up for ten years, by using MAGA-world influence to keep legal and social pressure at bay.

So a convicted sex offender sat in the middle of crypto experiments and nationalist politics, using digital asset schemes to buy protection from accountability. This was not abstract debate about regulatory gray zones. It was weaponized finance.

In early 2018, Epstein pressed Bannon to get answers from Treasury on how crypto gains would be taxed. When told the National Security Council was on it, Epstein pushed to involve the Treasury office that handles terrorism financing. On paper, it sounded like helpful policy engagement.

In reality, a sex trafficker was trying to steer the early rules of a new financial system through backchannels.

For operational help, the network leaned on Brock Pierce.

Pierce is not some fringe figure. Co-founder of Tether in its early days. Co-founder of Block[.]one, the company behind the giant EOS token sale. The files describe him as volatile, visionary, hedonistic. He met with Epstein. He met repeatedly with Bannon. He pitched crypto to politicians. He sat in rooms where policy, money, and technology blended into one conversation.

In that triangle, each person had a role. Pierce supplied crypto architecture and deal structure. Bannon supplied political access and media muscle. Epstein supplied capital and his network of elites.

They operated inside a regulatory vacuum, during the wild years of token sales and unregulated stablecoins, when lawmakers barely knew the difference between a coin and a token. They did exactly what sophisticated operators always do in a vacuum: moved fast, wrapped everything in jargon, and stayed just blurry enough.

Bitcoin survived, Epstein is dead, and the rest is just lurid background noise. That conclusion is wrong.

Epstein’s approach worked. He mapped out a fragile frontier: young technologies with weak institutions and lots of ideology. He found universities willing to suspend basic ethics if the donor list looked prestigious enough. He found political actors willing to trade protection in exchange for money funneled through hard-to-trace structures.

The real damage is not to the Bitcoin code. The damage hits the layer around it: universities, labs, think tanks, political operators, and the new class of crypto oligarchs who can buy meetings and shape narratives.

MIT’s choices gave Epstein the academic halo he needed. The partnership with Bannon showed how easily unregulated digital finance can be weaponized for political shielding. Pierce’s presence showed how crypto insiders can bridge the gap between fringe experiments and mainstream policy.

That is what regulatory capture looks like in real time. Not a dry debate, but a predator using philanthropy to infiltrate research labs and using crypto structures to purchase political insulation.

If this was possible a decade ago, what is happening today, with more money, more tools, and even less transparency?

Crypto culture loves to chant about decentralization and trustless systems. Epstein’s story exposes the weak spot. The protocol does not need to be corrupted. The humans do. Developers still need salaries and visas. Labs still need donors. Startups still need friendly regulators. Politicians still need campaign cash and talking points.

Each of those is a pressure point, and money still presses hardest.

A technology built to cut out middlemen ended up depending on the oldest, messiest middlemen on earth: human institutions that crumble the moment a check clears.

---

Still hungry?

Emails reveal Epstein’s network of the rich and powerful despite sex offender status

MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative Receives a Boost With $900,000 Raised for Bitcoin Development Fund

MIT releases results of fact-finding on engagements with Jeffrey Epstein

Letter regarding Jeffrey Epstein and MIT

Report Concerning Jeffrey Epstein’s Interactions with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology