Although Mr Matthews was the last of Dr Wright’s fact witnesses to be called, he was the next most significant fact witness after Dr Wright, for two main reasons. First, because he said Dr Wright gave him a copy of a draft Bitcoin White Paper in August 2008. Second, because he was closely involved in the events which occurred from 2014-2016, including the planned sessions to prove that Dr Wright was Satoshi. I discuss both these topics in much greater detail below. Mr Matthews was a cagey witness at times. I can accept much of his evidence with a few notable exceptions which I discuss below.

COPA submitted that Mr Matthews gave dishonest evidence that (i) he knew of Dr Wright’s work on developing Bitcoin in 2008; (ii) that he received a draft of the Bitcoin White Paper from Dr Wright in August 2008; (iii) that Dr Wright offered him Bitcoin in exchange for money in early 2009; and (iv) that Dr Wright pitched a blockchain-based project to him in early 2009. In addition, COPA submitted that his account of the “Big Reveal” is heavily skewed by his desire to cast Mr MacGregor as a bully and so divert attention from Dr Wright’s failure to provide the proof everyone expected. COPA relied on several points.

First, in his WhatsApp exchange with Mr Ager-Hanssen on 25 September 2023 {L20/183/1}, Mr Matthews clearly expressed the view that Dr Wright was a fake. Responding to a message describing Dr Wright as the “Biggest fake ever”, Mr Matthews replied: “Fuck. WTF is wrong with him. Well, at least we have NCH [nChain] to focus on, that’s not fake.” This is a message which ordinarily would not have come to light. Under cross-examination, he attempted (without success) to deny the plain meaning of these words {Day11/73:15} - {Day11/79:15}. He also attempted to explain the message by saying that it was intended to divert Mr Ager-Hanssen, who was threatening to “destroy” him {Day11/79:16} - {Day11/83:23}. I found this an odd allegation, so I raised the point (at the end of his evidence, see {Day12/100:1}) that the balance of power lay with Mr Matthews, who in the event was able to fire Mr Ager-Hanssen and have him injuncted. In my judgment, the plain meaning of Mr Matthews’ WhatsApp message is clear from the words he used. This has an impact on other aspects of his evidence which I consider below. Further, I do not accept his evidence that he was just trying to humour or fob off Mr Ager-Hanssen.

Second, COPA submit that Mr Matthews’ account of receiving the Bitcoin White Paper from Dr Wright was in any event not plausible. They point out it is not supported by any documentary evidence, or evidence from any other witnesses. This account did not emerge until after 2015, when doing so served Mr Matthews’ financial interests. Furthermore, the accounts from Dr Wright and Mr Matthews conflict, with Mr Matthews saying that the paper was provided in a USB stick containing a single file, which he printed, while Dr Wright claims that he handed over a paper copy. Mr Matthews’ account in his statement also conflicted with the account Mr O’Hagan took from him and recorded in “the Satoshi Affair”. See generally {Day11/89:22} - {Day11/103:20}.

The second point I raised with Mr Matthews at the conclusion of his evidence is how he dated his receipt of the White Paper to August 2008 and whether he had any anchor points for that date. He responded by saying that his anchor point in time was that the White Paper was released publicly on 31 October 2008 and he received the paper before that time. He then tried to say that he would have been aware of that anchor point because the release was public, but when pressed he admitted that the release was not well-known at the time (and on his own evidence, he took no interest in Bitcoin after reading the paper). In the end, he could only say “that’s my understanding of how to place it in the 2008 calendar” {Day12/97:16} - {Day12/98:11}. I found this utterly unconvincing.

Third, it is apparent that Mr Matthews had no idea that Dr Wright was claiming to be the inventor of Bitcoin when they were reconnecting in early 2014. That is evident from his email introducing Dr Wright to Mr MacGregor in February 2014 {L8/340/2}. In that email, he put Dr Wright forward as a potential partner for a business venture concerned with cryptocurrencies but did not mention his supposed best and singular qualification as the actual creator of the original cryptocurrency. The following exchange {at {Day11/118/4} - {Day11/118/16}} highlighted how ridiculous that would have been:

‘Q. But you were introducing two people in the context of a project about cryptocurrencies and you're saying it doesn't occur to you to mention that one of them is the inventor of the whole Bitcoin cryptocurrency blockchain system?

A. I didn't want to go to that level of detail, I wanted to introduce two people and let them find out if they had a way of working together.

Q. It's not a level of detail; it's one sentence on something which you've told us had not been a matter of secrecy.

A. I did not disclose that at the time to MacGregor. Obviously MacGregor found out later.’

Overall, I am satisfied that Mr Matthews did not receive a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper in 2008 and his evidence about receiving a copy of it before it was made public was made up. Mr Matthews’ WhatsApp message tends to confirm that this evidence was false.

Mr Matthews was considerably more careful in his lies than Dr Wright, only lying where he had to do so to sustain Dr Wright’s position. As I discuss in greater detail below, in relation to the events of 2015-16, Mr Matthews’ evidence was far more consistent than Dr Wright’s with the contemporaneous documents. COPA drew my attention to a number of significant differences between Mr Matthews’ evidence and Dr Wright’s. I agree that it does not follow from these differences that Mr Matthews was telling the truth on all the points concerned, but it is of value on some topics where it is consistent with contemporaneous documents that Dr Wright has tried to disown.