mit

Newly released Epstein documents point to an uncomfortable reality: during cryptocurrency’s early and fragile years, money linked to Jeffrey #Epstein intersected with institutions and individuals involved in crypto’s development. While Epstein did not create Bitcoin or control the industry, his financial footprint appears in places that helped shape its early ecosystem.
The Coinbase Connection
Jeffrey Epstein was deeply embedded in elite financial and academic circles, and documents suggest that a trust linked to him may have gained indirect exposure to during its early funding years.
At the time, $BTC was still considered a fringe experiment, and early equity in crypto companies later became enormously valuable. While Coinbase has denied direct investment from Epstein himself, records indicate that Epstein-linked entities may have benefited from early-stage crypto exposure through secondary or trust-based arrangements.
An Early Exit With Outsized Returns
By 2018, Epstein-linked trusts reportedly sold Coinbase-related equity to , locking in substantial gains well before the exchange became a public-market giant.
Today, Coinbase’s valuation underscores how lucrative even indirect early exposure to crypto infrastructure proved to be.
Funding Bitcoin Infrastructure
Epstein’s financial links extended beyond exchange equity. Records show that he donated roughly $500,000 to , a firm focused on Bitcoin’s core infrastructure.
These funds were routed through the #MIT Media Lab, then led by , highlighting how Epstein’s money moved through respected academic institutions rather than directly into crypto projects.
The MIT Pipeline
During a critical funding shortage around 2014, Epstein-linked donations flowed through MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative, a research hub that supported Bitcoin developers and related work.
While #Bitcoin Core did not depend on Epstein to survive, funding routed through academic channels helped sustain developer activity at a time when resources were scarce. His money intersected with Bitcoin’s development pipeline during a vulnerable phase , not as a controlling force, but as part of the financial environment surrounding early crypto research.
Silicon Valley Connections
Email records also show Epstein cultivated relationships with influential figures across technology and crypto circles, including Brock Pierce, Fred Ehrsam, and Reid Hoffman.
There is no evidence these individuals engaged in illegal activity or were aware of Epstein’s crimes at the time. However, the correspondence illustrates how Epstein positioned himself as a financier and advisor within emerging technology networks, including crypto.
The Quiet Response
Since the release of these documents, the broader crypto industry response has been muted. Many firms emphasize that Epstein held no formal leadership roles and exercised no control over $BTC or major crypto platforms.
Still, the lack of deeper reflection highlights an uncomfortable truth: innovative technologies often grow through imperfect funding sources, especially in their earliest days.
The Uncomfortable Reality
Bitcoin was not built by Jeffrey Epstein, nor was the cryptocurrency revolution driven by him. But parts of the early crypto ecosystem intersected with money tied to a convicted predator’s fortune, raising difficult questions about how emerging technologies are funded and who gets access to influence during their most fragile stages.
That history doesn’t define crypto , but it does deserve to be acknowledged.

Most liquidity solutions are rigid, forcing protocols to adapt. @Mitosis Official ($MITO ) flips the script with modular infrastructure that adapts to protocols instead. This flexibility means developers can build faster, liquidity providers can optimize yield, and users enjoy seamless access. Modularity is the key to scaling DeFi—and Mitosis is leading the charge.
#Mitosis #mit

Liquidity is more than just numbers on a balance sheet—it’s the lifeblood of financial connectivity. @Mitosis Official ($MITO ) ensures that this lifeblood flows freely across chains and protocols, fueling growth and adoption. With its modular design and focus on efficiency, Mitosis is not just keeping up with DeFi—it’s shaping its future.
#Mitosis #mit

📉 Is AI Making Us Mentally Lazy? Brainwaves Say YES, Especially for Students!

A recent study by MIT Media Lab suggests that relying on AI chatbots like ChatGPT significantly reduces brain activity during tasks like essay writing. Researchers tested college students using EEG headsets, comparing those who wrote essays unaided, with a search engine, or with help from OpenAI’s GPT-4o. The results? Students who used AI showed up to 55% less brain connectivity, while those using search engines had around 34–48% less. This means less thinking, less focus, and a lot more mental coasting when using AI tools 🤖🧠.
The study didn’t just measure brainwaves. It also tested how well participants remembered what they wrote and how much they felt connected to their work. Once again, the AI group scored the lowest across the board. When switched to a no-AI condition later on, students who had previously relied on AI struggled significantly more than their counterparts. Conversely, those who initially used only their brain power showed increased brain activity once they got access to AI tools — showing it’s better to learn first, then use AI as a support 📝⚡.
MIT researchers warned that early overuse of AI can lead to poor learning habits, shallow memory, and less critical thinking. They suggested schools delay AI use until students have first practiced learning on their own. Although the study is still in pre-review, it’s already sparking concern among educators. The takeaway? If students let AI do all the thinking, we may be heading toward a generation of low-effort, low-retention learners 📉📚.
The MIT team plans to expand their research into coding and creative skills, hoping to explore how AI impacts not just memory, but creativity and problem-solving too. With AI becoming a part of everyday life, this research sounds the alarm: use it smartly—or risk losing your edge. ⚠️🧩
#chatgpt #research #MIT #AI $BTC

The return of former Securities and Exchange Commission ($SEC) Chair Gary Gensler to $MIT has sparked a wave of reactions across the cryptocurrency community. Known for his stringent regulatory stance during his tenure at the SEC, Gensler’s reappointment at the prestigious institution has drawn criticism from some industry leaders who argue that his policies stifled innovation in the blockchain space.
$XRP

Industry Leaders Call for Action
On January 27, MIT officially rehired Gensler, just days after he stepped down from his SEC role. His return to academia, however, has not been welcomed by all. Prominent crypto figures, including Tyler Winklevoss, co-founder of Gemini, voiced their dissatisfaction. Winklevoss took to social media, stating that as long as Gensler remained affiliated with MIT, Gemini would not hire graduates from the university, including interns.
Other key players in the space echoed similar sentiments. ShapeShift founder Eric Voorhees urged crypto companies to boycott MIT graduates until Gensler was removed from his position, arguing that his past regulatory approach had negatively impacted the industry. While some supported these calls for action, others believed that targeting students was misguided and counterproductive, potentially leading to missed opportunities for hiring top talent in the blockchain sector.
Mixed Reactions Within the Crypto Community
The idea of a boycott was met with divided opinions. Some industry participants viewed it as a necessary market-driven response to regulatory overreach, while others criticized it as unfair and excessive. Legal expert Sarah Shtylman dismissed the proposal, calling it an example of "cancel culture taken too far." Meanwhile, Fox Business reporter Eleanor Terrett questioned whether Gensler’s perspective on crypto might shift now that he has returned to an academic setting.
This is not the first time industry leaders have boycotted organizations linked to former SEC officials. In December, after Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong severed ties with the law firm Milbank for hiring former SEC Commissioner Gurbir Grewal, Winklevoss followed suit, stating that Gemini would also stop working with firms employing former SEC personnel.
Despite the backlash, MIT has not indicated any plans to reconsider its decision to bring Gensler back into its academic ranks. Whether his return will influence future regulatory discourse remains to be seen, but it is clear that the crypto industry remains deeply invested in the broader conversation about regulation, innovation, and academic affiliations.
#CryptoRegulation #MIT #BlockchainInnovation #SEC

📅 November 11 | Boston, United States
Brilliant, charismatic, and admired for their intelligence. That's how Benjamin and William Eisenberg, the so-called “MIT brothers,” were known until their names became linked to one of the most controversial crypto fraud cases in recent U.S. history. According to The Block, federal prosecutors have requested a new trial after the original trial—for the alleged theft of $25 million in Ethereum through mempool manipulation—ended in a mistrial, meaning without a verdict.

📖 The Eisenberg brothers got their start at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) labs, where they both excelled in computational engineering and network theory. While many saw them as future Web3 innovators, they—according to prosecutors—decided to test the limits of the Ethereum system.
The case details that, in April 2023, the brothers designed a MEV (Maximum Extractable Value) exploit, intercepting transactions before they were confirmed and extracting $25 million worth of ETH in a matter of seconds. They claim it was “a legitimate technical test within the open rules of the blockchain”, but the prosecution considered it intentional fraud and manipulation of the digital market.
During the trial, defense attorneys argued that “code is law”, citing the public and programmable nature of Ethereum, while prosecutors responded that consent and intent remain essential to justice.
The legal proceedings became a philosophical and legal debate about the limits of decentralization and ethics in code. After weeks of technical testimony and forensic blockchain analysis, the jury declared itself divided, forcing a mistrial.
Now, the Justice Department is seeking to reopen the case with new evidence, including wallet records and Discord messages where the brothers allegedly boasted about their feat. If their guilt is confirmed, they could face sentences of up to 20 years in prison and multimillion-dollar fines.

Topic Opinion:
The Eisenberg brothers represent a new generation of developers who grew up believing that code can do anything, but this trial reminds us that blockchain also needs human accountability.
While DeFi should remain a space for free experimentation, it cannot become a space without consequences. Every exploit is not just a line of code: behind it are investors, users, and collective trust.
💬 Where do you think experimentation ends and fraud begins in DeFi?

Leave your comment...
#Ethereum #mit #CryptoNews #defi #EthereumNews $ETH