A recently uncovered email from 2014 is reigniting discussions about the rivalry between Ripple and Bitcoin, particularly regarding the implications for the cryptocurrency ecosystem. The email, sent by Austin Hill, then CEO of Blockstream, to Jeffrey Epstein and others, labeled Ripple and Jed McCaleb”s Stellar as detrimental to the industry.
This correspondence came to light following the U.S. Department of Justice”s publication of extensive records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which includes various documents related to past investigations. While the email”s connection to Epstein draws attention, the core argument presented by Hill warrants further examination.
Hill contended that investment flows directed towards Ripple and Stellar were not just competition but a source of “contamination” that could potentially undermine the future of Bitcoin. His perspective reflected a common belief among Bitcoin maximalists of that era, who viewed the ecosystem as primarily centered around Bitcoin and its supporting infrastructure.
In contrast, advocates within the XRP community interpret Hill”s email as evidence of efforts by early Bitcoin proponents to steer investors away from Ripple. Leonidas Hadjiloizou, an XRP commentator, suggested that the email was an attempt to pressure stakeholders to “pick a horse,” thus diminishing support for Ripple and Stellar.
The resurfaced email has prompted responses from figures like David Schwartz, former CTO of Ripple, who indicated that this email might be just the “tip of a giant iceberg.” Schwartz expressed concern over the adversarial stance taken against rival networks, emphasizing that such division could hinder the overall growth of the cryptocurrency sector.
Interestingly, the fears expressed in Hill”s email seem to have materialized differently than anticipated. Ripple has not only thrived but has established itself as a prominent and regulated entity within the cryptocurrency space. The resolution of its long-standing legal battle with the SEC in 2025 marked a significant turning point, providing clarity that has facilitated Ripple”s integration into mainstream financial systems.
Ripple”s growth trajectory contradicts the notion that it would harm Bitcoin. Instead, recent developments, including the introduction of XRP ETFs and major acquisitions, have reinforced Ripple”s position as a legitimate institutional asset. This evolution suggests that the cryptocurrency landscape is not merely a zero-sum game between Bitcoin and payment networks.
The historical friction between the Bitcoin and Ripple communities can be traced back to earlier debates, where Ripple”s structure and goals were frequently criticized on platforms like Bitcointalk. Supporters of Ripple, however, argued that its focus on enhancing transaction efficiency and reducing costs was a practical response to market needs rather than an ideological betrayal of Bitcoin.
This ongoing rivalry has transitioned into modern lobbying efforts, with figures like Jack Mallers advocating for a Bitcoin-centric framework while expressing concern over Ripple”s influence in policy discussions. The complexities of this debate have been further highlighted by recent statements from political leaders suggesting a multi-asset strategy for a U.S. strategic cryptocurrency reserve.
Despite the historical tensions, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has continuously called for unity and collaboration within the cryptocurrency industry, urging all participants to work together to foster growth in this rapidly evolving space.
