Crypto likes to tell its own origin story. It is one of cypherpunks and clean breaks - code over character, maths over morals. Newly released files tied to Jeffrey Epstein complicate that mythology. They suggest that one of the most disreputable financiers of recent decades was not merely circling the crypto industry, but helping to bankroll parts of its early institutional scaffolding.

According to documents released by the US Department of Justice, Epstein was a financial backer of research efforts closely linked to Bitcoin’s development, via his long-running relationship with the MIT Media Lab. Internal correspondence described its Digital Currency Initiative as the “principal home and funding source” for bitcoin’s early work. In parallel, Epstein invested directly in the industry’s corporate future, putting $3m into Coinbase in 2014 and backing Blockstream the same year - both well after his 2008 conviction.

The sums were not decisive. Epstein was a minority investor, not a puppeteer. Yet crypto’s insistence that decentralisation absolves all association misses the point. Institutions still channel talent, shape narratives and determine which projects gain legitimacy. Coinbase, now a publicly listed giant whose leadership has become influential in US crypto policy, has declined to comment.

Epstein’s access flowed through crypto’s early power brokers. His Coinbase investment was facilitated by Brock Pierce, a well-connected evangelist and co-founder of Tether. At MIT, he worked closely with Joichi Ito, who helped steer both research funding and venture capital. Emails show Epstein cultivating personal relationships with developers and executives, inviting them to his Caribbean properties and r

emaining in contact long after scrutiny mounted.

The industry’s response has been muted. Some dismiss Epstein as a sceptical investor who exited too early; others argue that bitcoin “needed no funding” and therefore no reckoning. Markets, predictably, have not flinched.

But the files do puncture a comforting fiction. Crypto did not emerge in ethical isolation. Like every other financial system, it grew through networks of money, influence and human frailty. Code may be neutral. Capital rarely is.

Bitcoin has never lacked for narratives. What it lacks today is clarity. After a bruising sell-off and a hesitant rebound, the world’s largest cryptocurrency sits at the intersection of macroeconomics, institutional plumbing and uneven global adoption. The next phase will be shaped less by ideology than by incentives.

In rich economies, Bitcoin increasingly trades as a liquidity instrument. Price discovery is driven not by on-chain use but by derivatives positioning and flows into exchange-traded funds. The rapid rise of spot ETFs tethered bitcoin to the same forces that move equities and bonds. When financial conditions loosen, bitcoin rallies sharply. When rates stay higher for longer, enthusiasm fades just as quickly. Over the next year, this dynamic points to volatility rather than a clean trend.

Mining adds another twist. The economics of securing the network are deteriorating as block rewards shrink and transaction fees remain thin. Faced with brutal arithmetic, many large miners are repurposing their most valuable asset - power access. Hosting artificial-intelligence data centres often offers steadier and more lucrative returns than hashing. If this shift accelerates, bitcoin’s security will rely on a smaller, more geographically concentrated mining base, subtly altering the network’s risk profile.

Yet to view bitcoin solely through a Western lens is misleading. In parts of Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, adoption continues for practical reasons: capital controls, unstable currencies and weak banking systems. Usage there is modest in volume but durable in intent. This demand does not set the marginal price, but it may underpin bitcoin’s long-term floor.

The likely outcome is an uneasy coexistence. In developed markets, bitcoin behaves like a leveraged macro trade, sensitive to rates and risk appetite. Elsewhere, it functions as a financial escape hatch. For investors, that makes bitcoin neither digital gold nor a mere speculative toy, but an unstable hybrid of both.

Predictions, then, should be modest. Expect sharp swings, false dawns and periodic reinvention. Bitcoin’s future will not be decided by a single catalyst, but by the balance between speculation where alternatives are plentiful and necessity where they are not.

For years, Bitcoin mining in the UK has been sold as digital alchemy: machines turning electricity into money. The reality now looks more like heavy industry with collapsing margins. As Fred Thiel of MARA puts it, mining is a zero-sum game. As capacity rises, profits fall. Energy costs set the floor; everyone else fights over scraps.

The design is structural. Bitcoin was meant to transition from block subsidies to transaction fees. That moment has not arrived. Traders increasingly express views through derivatives, not on-chain transfers. Even bouts of volatility fail to generate meaningful fee income. On-chain velocity remains sluggish. Fees spike occasionally, then fade. The economics do not compound.

The next halving in 2028 will halve rewards again. By 2032, the arithmetic becomes brutal. Only miners in the lowest cost quartile will survive. Evidence suggests many already are not. Network difficulty has fallen sharply, hashrate has dropped, and smaller operators appear to be switching off. Hardware makers, faced with weak demand, are increasingly mining for themselves.

Salvation, oddly, may lie elsewhere. Morgan Stanley argues that bitcoin miners’ real asset is not crypto expertise but power access. Data centres for artificial intelligence are starved of electricity. Former mining sites - already grid-connected, permitted and built at scale - can be repurposed quickly. The returns look far better.

In this telling, the future of British mining firms is not crypto at all, but infrastructure. Long-term leases, creditworthy counterparties and stable cash flows attract REIT-style investors, not bitcoin maximalists. The “REIT endgame”, as analysts call it, values sheds and substations over hashpower.

There are risks. AI demand may cool. Efficiency may improve. But the strategic shift is telling. The UK hosts a huge share of bitcoin mining. If it pivots to AI, network power drifts elsewhere. For politicians promising crypto dominance, that is awkward.

For miners, however, ideology matters less than survival.

When digging for gold stops paying, it makes sense to sell the shovels - and rent out the land.

Remember when the news was about what happened, not how to feel about it? 1440's Daily Digest is bringing that back. Every morning, they sift through 100+ sources to deliver a concise, unbiased briefing — no pundits, no paywalls, no politics. Just the facts, all in five minutes. For free.

Read the newsletter trusted by 4.5 million fact-seekers.

You may be in the red right now. Document it, remember how this feels when you are next in the green. It will make you grateful.