Giannis Andreou

Bithumb, jedna z největších kryptoměnových burz v Jižní Koreji, uspořádala na začátku února 2026 pravidelnou propagační kampaň. Ta se však stala vážným regulačním problémem. Co začalo jako jednoduchá interní chyba při zadávání dat, krátce zobrazilo stovky tisíc "duchů Bitcoin" na uživatelských přístrojích. Někteří držitelé účtů skutečně obchodovali s těmito zůstatky, což přimělo regulátory, aby podrobněji prozkoumali vnitřní mechanismy centralizovaných kryptoměnových platforem.
Tento článek zkoumá, jak se incident s duchem Bitcoin stal klíčovým příkladem zranitelností v účetnictví burz. Také se zabývá důvody za zrychleným postupem Jižní Koreje k důkladnějšímu, bankovně podobnému dohledu nad službami virtuálních aktiv.

Ekonomika tvůrců v kryptoměnách se dlouho potýká s jedním základním problémem: jak spravedlivě odměnit lidi, kteří produkují skutečnou hodnotu, ne jen kliknutí.
Tradiční platformy se téměř výhradně spoléhají na reklamu. Zobrazení mají větší váhu než poznání. Zapojení často převyšuje vzdělání. A tvůrci jsou obvykle placeni na základě dosahu, nikoli dopadu.
Tento model se do Web3 příliš nepřekládá.
Nedávno Changpeng Zhao sdílel, že Binance Square již směřuje k monetizaci tvůrců. Místo toho, aby Square pozicoval jako náhlé „Web3 YouTube“, popsal jeho vývoj jako postupný, produktově orientovaný a řízený zpětnou vazbou od komunity.

What the Department of Justice Has Confirmed
The U.S. Department of Justice recently confirmed the public release of nearly 3.5 million pages of documents connected to investigations involving Jeffrey Epstein, alongside more than 2,000 videos and approximately 180,000 images. This disclosure was carried out under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation signed in November 2025 requiring federal agencies to publish Epstein-related materials, subject to legal redactions.
On paper, this appears to be one of the largest document releases tied to a criminal investigation in modern U.S. history.
In reality, it has raised more questions than answers.
I have followed the Epstein case closely for years. What we are seeing now is not simply a document dump. It is a complex intersection of justice, politics, survivor protection, and institutional accountability.
The size of the release is not the real story.
The process is.
What DOJ Has Officially Released
According to the Department of Justice, the January publication added over three million pages to previous disclosures, bringing the cumulative total close to 3.5 million pages. The archive also includes thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of images gathered during federal investigations involving Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
The Department stated that the release was intended to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and emphasized that extensive redactions were applied to protect victims and sensitive personal information.
However, DOJ also acknowledged that more than six million pages were internally identified as potentially responsive to the law. That means roughly half of the material reviewed has not been released publicly.
Shortly after publication, DOJ removed thousands of files from public access after acknowledging that some documents required additional redaction to prevent survivor identification.
A Timeline of the Epstein Case
Jeffrey Epstein was first charged in 2006 in Florida for sex crimes involving minors. In 2008, he entered a controversial plea deal that allowed him to avoid federal prosecution and serve just over a year in jail with work release.
In July 2019, Epstein was arrested again on federal sex trafficking charges in New York. He died in custody in August 2019.
Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in 2020, convicted in 2021, and later sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Following Epstein’s death, civil lawsuits and investigative reporting intensified pressure on the government to release records tied to his crimes and associates.
In November 2025, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The first major batch of files was released in January 2026.
This was not a single disclosure event. It became an ongoing and contested process.
Congressional Oversight and Survivor Concerns

Lawmakers from both parties challenged the scope and execution of the release.
Members of Congress formally requested access to unredacted files, arguing that public trust requires independent verification of DOJ’s redaction decisions.
At the same time, Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee accused DOJ of failing to adequately protect survivors after identifying information appeared in some published materials.
Survivor advocacy groups echoed those concerns, stating that victims were retraumatized by the release.Another controversy followed reports that DOJ systems tracked how lawmakers searched the files during controlled reviews. House leadership criticized this practice, saying it undermined transparency.
What the Transparency Act Does and Does Not Require
The Epstein Files Transparency Act mandates publication of Epstein-related investigative materials, but it explicitly allows redactions to protect victims, privacy, national security, and ongoing legal matters.
It does not require full unredacted disclosure.
It also does not require every internally reviewed document to be published.
Legal compliance does not equal total transparency.
What Is Proven and What Is Not
These facts are confirmed:
1. Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 and arrested again in 2019 on federal trafficking charges.
2. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted and sentenced to 20 years.
3. Nearly 3.5 million pages have been released.
4. More than six million pages were reviewed internally.
5. Congress continues to pursue further access.
6. Survivor advocacy groups have raised serious redaction concerns.
These points are not proven:
1. There is no verified master list proving criminal participation by every named individual.
2. Being mentioned in files does not equal guilt.
3. Federal prosecutors have stated they lacked sufficient evidence to charge additional high-profile figures.
4. There is no confirmed evidence linking Epstein to the creation of Bitcoin or control of Satoshi wallets.
Large investigative archives always contain administrative records, duplicates, and unsubstantiated references that require careful legal interpretation.
Why Document Volume Does Not Equal Transparency
Massive releases often give the impression that everything is finally exposed.
That is rarely true.
Raw investigative archives include interviews, procedural records, emails, financial logs, and internal correspondence. Without structured indexing or independent audits, they are difficult to interpret and easy to misrepresent.
Transparency without context can overwhelm rather than inform.
That is why the real debate now centers on process.
What was released.
What was withheld.
How redactions were applied.
Who controls access.
And whether survivors were properly protected.
Where Things Stand Now
The Epstein files release has not closed this chapter.
Lawmakers continue to seek unredacted access.
Survivor groups are pressing for stronger safeguards.
Journalists are still reviewing materials.
Further congressional action remains possible.
The Department of Justice technically complied with the Transparency Act.
But compliance is not the same as accountability.
Publishing millions of pages answered one question.
It opened many more.

Index strachu a chamtivosti v kryptoměnách klesl na 5, což pevně zařazuje tržní sentiment do kategorie extrémního strachu.
Index, publikovaný denně na Alternative.me, se pohybuje od 0 do 100 a je navržen tak, aby odrážel emocionální podmínky na kryptoměnovém trhu. Hodnoty pod 25 jsou klasifikovány jako extrémní strach, zatímco hodnoty nad 75 indikují extrémní chamtivost.
Skóre 5 představuje jedno z nejnižších měření sentimentu zaznamenaných indexem.
Zatímco volatilita cen na kryptoměnových trzích je běžná, dosažení této úrovně sentimentu obvykle odráží širokou nejistotu, sníženou chuť na riziko a zvýšenou opatrnost mezi účastníky.