Few decisions in crypto history have generated as much lingering debate as Coinbase’s prolonged refusal to list XRP during the industry’s formative years. While the exchange consistently framed itself as a compliance-first platform, critics often questioned why one of the market’s most liquid and widely adopted digital assets remained sidelined for so long.
Recent resurfacing of early funding details has reignited that discussion, adding fresh context to a long-standing controversy.
The renewed scrutiny gained traction after commentary from Cobb, who reacted to revelations circulating from SwanDesk regarding Coinbase’s early investors. His post followed disclosures linked to newly unsealed Epstein-related files, prompting questions about whether historical relationships and reputational considerations may have indirectly influenced Coinbase’s posture toward XRP.
The Epstein Investment and Coinbase’s Early Years
According to resurfaced emails referenced in recently unsealed Epstein files, Jeffrey Epstein invested $3 million in Coinbase in 2014 at an estimated $400 million valuation. The correspondence indicates that Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam was aware of the investment, while Brock Pierce and Blockchain Capital helped arrange the deal.
does this have something to do with why they refused to list XRP for the longest time? https://t.co/UBTZnTWo01
— Cobb (@Cobb_XRPL) February 3, 2026
At the time, Coinbase operated in a largely unregulated crypto environment where venture capital and private investments often occurred with limited transparency. High-profile investors, controversial or otherwise, participated in early crypto funding rounds with minimal public disclosure, reflecting the industry’s experimental stage.
Brock Pierce, Ripple, and Lingering Questions
Brock Pierce’s involvement has drawn heightened attention because of his historical association with Ripple and public support for XRP. This overlap has fueled speculation among XRP supporters about whether internal dynamics, reputational risk, or conflicting relationships may have shaped Coinbase’s early decisions.
However, no evidence confirms that Epstein’s investment or Pierce’s involvement directly influenced Coinbase’s refusal to list XRP. The connection remains circumstantial, driven by timing, overlapping figures, and later regulatory events rather than documented causation.
Regulatory Pressure and Coinbase’s XRP Stance
Coinbase has consistently cited regulatory uncertainty as the primary reason for its cautious approach to XRP. The exchange eventually listed XRP in 2019 but suspended trading in early 2021 following the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple. After key legal developments clarified aspects of XRP’s regulatory status, Coinbase relisted the asset, reinforcing its stated compliance-driven rationale.
We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1
— TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025
Despite this explanation, critics note that other major exchanges handled XRP exposure differently during the same period. That contrast continues to fuel debate over whether Coinbase’s caution stemmed solely from regulation or from broader institutional considerations.
Epstein Files and the Crypto Industry Reckoning
The renewed focus on Epstein-linked documents forms part of a wider reassessment of early relationships across finance, technology, and crypto. As historical records resurface, market participants have begun reexamining how opaque funding sources and reputational risk may have shaped corporate behavior behind the scenes.
Within the XRP community, some interpret the resurfacing of these connections as potential context for long-standing suppression narratives. Others emphasize that speculation should not replace documented evidence.
Drawing the Line Between Facts and Inference
Cobb’s post reflects a broader effort to revisit crypto’s early history through newly available information. Still, no confirmed documentation shows that Epstein’s Coinbase investment caused or contributed to XRP’s delayed listing.
What the episode does reveal is how crypto’s early growth intersected with opaque funding, influential personalities, and regulatory anxiety. As more historical details emerge, scrutiny will persist. For now, the question remains open, rooted in context and coincidence rather than proven intent.
Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Telegram, and Google News
