A 2018 email from the files of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein has resurfaced, referencing a potential discussion about digital currencies with Gary Gensler, years before he became the Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The email, dated May 2018, includes a brief message asking for opinions on “Gary Gensler coming earlier… wants to talk digital currencies.”
The timing of the email is significant, as it aligns with a critical period of early SEC investigations into the crypto industry, predating the U.S. government's intensified regulatory focus on digital assets. The email also reportedly informed former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers of Gensler's early arrival, with Summers describing Gensler as “pretty smart.”
There is no confirmed evidence that a meeting between Epstein and Gensler actually took place. At the time, Gensler was a professor at MIT teaching blockchain and digital currency courses, a role he held long before his 2021 appointment as SEC Chair under the Biden administration. Legal commentators emphasize that any potential conversations would have occurred several years before Gensler held any regulatory authority, and no evidence connects him to misconduct during his SEC tenure.
The leaked files also shed light on Epstein's reported financial involvement in early crypto ventures. He allegedly invested approximately $3 million into Coinbase in 2014. Emails referencing projects like XRP and Stellar have fueled speculation that he may have held early positions in those networks, though documentation remains limited. Epstein was also reportedly linked to early stablecoin ventures, including Circle (issuer of USDC), possibly through entrepreneur Brock Pierce, with suggestions of potential indirect involvement in Tether's early operations.
Further allegations involve Epstein funding research connected to U.S. central bank digital currency (CBDC) pilot programs through MIT and certain Federal Reserve Banks. If accurate, this would place him near formative academic and regulatory discussions on digital currency design. Critics argue these revelations highlight overlapping networks between academia, private investors, and future regulators, raising broader transparency questions.
