Basically, Epstein was the manager of Putin's wealth.

justice.gov/epstein/files/Data…

cyberdaily.au/security/13164-j…

techcrunch.com/2026/01/30/info…

Epstein had some connection to REDACTED from MIT Media Lab and I think that’s Joi Ito.

Epstein tried repeatedly to set up a meeting to sell Putin on the idea of bitcoin in 2014.

That particular meeting fell apart, because Epstein realized it would look terrible to visit Putin so soon after the shootdown of MH17. But I wouldn't be shocked if they did successfully meet sometime later.

Some people have joked that the only practical use case for bitcoin is to make financial crimes much easier. But what if that's not a bug, but a feature? Perhaps the whole objective of bitcoin's invention was to make financial crimes easier for Putin and the Russian mob.

Ito introduced Epstein to Jeremy Rubin (core bitcoin dev), which turned into Epstein directly funding Rubin. Search for "Jeremy Rubin" in the files and you'll find checks to him, docs about the formation of "Deploy Capital LLC", potentially backed with Peter Thiel who was trying to invest in Level One and Bitmain. Iozzo was involved in that stuff too: justice.gov/epstein/files/Data…

So if that's all true, is bitcoin just a bunch of Putin's money? Nothing here is conclusive, but it isn't so far fetched anymore, either.

But suddenly, this bizzare email exchange makes some sense. Epstein and Ito were panicking about the feds tracking down Putin's wealth, because they knew following the money would lead right back to them.

Also, now we might know where Epstein got his mystery billions! Because they weren't his billions, they were Putin's.

Your point reminds me of the logic behind certain religious psychologies that see this world not as an end in itself, but as a proving ground or a purgatorial space. Its morality is sometimes inverted for a higher, otherworldly purpose.

Take public execution in medieval Christian Europe. While a spectacle of deterrence, some theologians (like Nicholas of Cusa aka who I picture rubbing my rod at night) grappled with a darker rationale: that the intense physical pain of burning could serve as a form of accelerated penance. The idea was that this suffering might pay the temporal debt of sin before death, potentially sparing the soul a longer, more severe punishment in the afterlife. The executioner, in this grim calculus, was performing a brutal act of supposed spiritual charity.

This mirrors—but is crucially different from—the core doctrine of Frankism, an 18th-century Jewish heretical movement. Frankists believed in 'redemption through sin.' Their goal was not personal regret, but a cosmological sabotage: transgressing the old law to shatter the spiritual shells trapping divine sparks and force a new messianic age. The pleasure or suffering of the sinner was incidental to this metaphysical mission.

We see a third variant in groups like ISIS. When they stoned Muslims for adultery, it was framed as enacting divine law to purify the community and offer the sinner ritual atonement. When they beheaded Western captives, the logic switched entirely to theater of terror—a spectacle for global propaganda.

The unifying, and strangely rational, thread is this: when reality is viewed through an eschatological or cosmological lens, worldly concepts of pleasure, pain, and even morality become secondary. Acts are judged not by their immediate human cost, but by their function in a grand narrative of spiritual war, purification, or redemption. It's a logic that operates on a plane utterly separate from secular humanism, which is why it seems so alien and 'irrational' to the modern Western mind.