Hoskinson Blasts Ripple CEO Garlinghouse Over US Clarity Act Push
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has launched a new public broadside at Ripple chief executive Brad Garlinghouse, accusing him of backing a regulatory deal that, in Hoskinson’s view, would hand even more power to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and lock the crypto industry into a damaging framework for decades.
In a video published on January 18, 2026, Hoskinson used an extended, free‑flowing monologue on the state of the market, sentiment in the industry, and the long‑term vision behind Cardano and its privacy‑focused Midnight sidechain to spotlight what he described as a dangerous pivot around the proposed US “Clarity Act.”
Hoskinson’s Core Grievance: Expanded SEC Power
According to Hoskinson, the latest version of the Clarity Act has been bloated with “137 amendments” and now tilts decisively in favor of the SEC. He painted a scenario in which nearly every new blockchain project would be presumed a security from day one, forcing founders and developers to “go beg and plead” for exemptions or relief.
In his telling, far from solving the crypto industry’s long‑standing problem of legal uncertainty, the bill would cement an even more hostile environment, under which innovation survives only at the regulator’s discretion. He argued that embracing such a framework out of desperation for “any clarity at all” would be a historic mistake.
“How is that any better than what Scary Gary [Gensler] gave us under Biden?” Hoskinson asked, drawing a direct line between the proposed legislation and the aggressive enforcement regime the SEC pursued during the administration of former US President Joe Biden. To him, the bill does not represent compromise but capitulation—an institutionalization of the very overreach the industry has been fighting against.
Direct Shot At Brad Garlinghouse
Though Hoskinson began by alluding to unnamed industry leaders who, he claimed, are privately urging compromise, he quickly moved to name Ripple’s Brad Garlinghouse as a prime example of what he considers a dangerously conciliatory stance.
“Still got people like Brad saying, ‘Well, it’s not perfect but we just got to get something,’” Hoskinson said. He paraphrased this view as: “It’s better than no clarity. Hand it to the same people who sued us. Hand it to the same people who put us out of business, who subpoenaed us, who put us in jail. That’s better. That’s what we fought for.”
The line was delivered with heavy sarcasm, underscoring his frustration that some of crypto’s most high‑profile executives appear, in his view, ready to accept a compromised bill simply to claim a short‑term policy win or to gain regulated access to capital markets. For Hoskinson, trading fundamental principles for a seat at the table is not progress, but surrender.
“You Pass It, You Own It Forever”
Hoskinson then turned to the long time horizon of securities regulation to argue that the Clarity Act, if passed in its current form, would be all but impossible to meaningfully revise. He invoked the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as examples of laws that have defined the legal environment for nearly a century.
“And tell me, how do we change it? Like we changed the Securities Exchange Act of 1933,” he said. “Ninety‑plus years later, have we been able to change it? No. You pass it, you own it forever. Sorry, Brad. It’s not better than chaos. Take the chaos and fight for what’s right. Fight for integrity.”
For Hoskinson, “chaos” in the form of regulatory uncertainty is still preferable to a rigid, unfavorable statute. His argument is that once a restrictive law becomes the baseline, future innovation will be constrained by it, and lobbyists will focus on securing narrow carve‑outs instead of reshaping the underlying philosophy of financial regulation.
Clash Of Philosophies: Pragmatism vs. Purism
The confrontation with Garlinghouse lays bare a deeper ideological rift inside the digital asset sector. On one side are executives and lobbyists who argue that the industry must secure a political settlement, even if imperfect, to move from a gray area into regulated legitimacy. On the other side are figures like Hoskinson, who view this drive as a betrayal of crypto’s original mission.
From the more pragmatic camp, the logic is simple: without statutory clarity, projects and exchanges remain exposed to surprise enforcement actions, delayed institutional adoption, and an uneven global playing field. A workable, if flawed, law could unblock capital, unlock mainstream financial products, and provide some legal safety for entrepreneurs and investors.
Hoskinson counters that this mindset inevitably circles back to the same power structures crypto sought to disrupt. He warns that by chasing quick wins in Washington, industry leaders risk engineering a future where blockchain is merely a backend for traditional finance, constrained by heavy compliance, gatekeeping, and surveillance.
Fear Of A Custodial, KYC‑First Future
A major part of Hoskinson’s critique is not just about the letter of the Clarity Act, but about the direction of travel it symbolizes. He described a world where custodial wallets become the default user interface to crypto, where stringent know‑your‑customer (KYC) rules apply everywhere, and where transactions can be routinely reversed, frozen, or screened.
“I didn’t sign up to hand the revolution to 15 banks,” he said, sketching a scenario in which a handful of major financial institutions and compliant intermediaries mediate the vast majority of blockchain activity. In such a system, he argued, the original promise of self‑custody, censorship‑resistant value transfer, and open access would fade into the background.
Hoskinson linked this vision to broader concerns about surveillance capitalism and the erosion of individual agency. If blockchains are architected and regulated in ways that prioritize state and corporate control, he argued, they become yet another layer of tracking, not a tool for personal empowerment.
Cardano, Midnight, And The “Revolution” Narrative
Throughout his remarks, Hoskinson repeatedly circled back to Cardano and its associated projects, positioning them as part of a longer‑term attempt to rethink identity, privacy, and value flows on the internet. Midnight, Cardano’s data‑protection oriented network, was implicitly framed as a response to the kind of surveillance‑heavy future he fears.
By casting the regulatory debate in civilizational terms—“agency,” “integrity,” “revolution”—Hoskinson is staking a claim that certain design and governance choices in crypto are non‑negotiable. For him, this is not merely about how tokens are classified, but about whether blockchains become an extension of existing control systems or a genuine alternative.
Critique Of Industry Morale And “Learned Hopelessness”
Beyond regulatory strategy, Hoskinson also took aim at what he called “toxic learned hopelessness” within the crypto conversation. He said he has stopped reading or engaging on X/Twitter, although he still posts broadcasts, arguing that the constant churn of outrage, demands for instant announcements, and fixation on price action can corrode long‑term thinking.
He suggested that this atmosphere of impatience and cynicism nudges industry leaders toward quick, visible wins—such as announcing a political compromise—rather than holding out for structural change that could take years of negotiation and technological development. In his view, the same short‑termism driving speculative trading is now shaping policy decisions.
Regulatory Context: Why The Clarity Act Matters
The intensity of Hoskinson’s reaction is partly explained by the stakes attached to any major US crypto bill. For years, the industry has operated under a patchwork of enforcement actions, speeches, and guidance, rather than clear statutes. Court battles—most famously around XRP—have offered limited, case‑specific clarity but no unified framework.
A comprehensive law defining when and how digital assets are treated as securities, commodities, or a new asset class could reshape everything from token launches to exchange listings and DeFi protocol design. For Ripple and other large players, a workable settlement could mean smoother relationships with institutions, banks, and public markets.
Hoskinson, however, fears that the path being charted will favor incumbents with deep legal budgets and regulatory relationships, while leaving smaller, more experimental projects stuck in compliance limbo or unable to operate in the US at all.
Why Ripple Might See Things Differently
While Garlinghouse did not respond in the same video, it is not hard to infer why Ripple might be more inclined toward a compromise. The company has lived through a high‑profile legal confrontation with the SEC, one that spooked partners, constrained US operations, and cast a long shadow over XRP.
From that vantage point, codifying rules—even if imperfect—could be seen as a way to prevent a repeat of years‑long courtroom uncertainty. A clearer statute might also make it easier for XRP and similar assets to be integrated into financial products, traded on major US platforms, or packaged for institutional clients.
The friction between Ripple’s more transactional approach and Hoskinson’s ideological framing reflects a broader divide: for some, crypto is now a maturing financial sector that must accept political reality; for others, it is still a movement defined by resistance to that reality.
Implications For Developers And New Projects
If a bill resembling the version Hoskinson criticized were to pass, the practical consequences for new projects could be severe. Classifying “all new projects” as securities by default, as he fears, would likely mean:
– Higher legal and compliance costs from day one
– Barriers to public token offerings for small teams
– Reduced experimentation with new token models
– Greater dependence on regulated intermediaries and custodians
This could push more innovation offshore, with teams either excluding US users entirely or relocating to more permissive jurisdictions. It could also encourage further centralization, as only well‑funded entities could afford the cost of full regulatory compliance.
Market Backdrop: XRP’s Position
Hoskinson’s comments landed at a moment when XRP remains one of the largest and most liquid digital assets. At the time of his remarks, XRP was trading around 1.95 dollars, reflecting a market that has, at least in part, moved beyond the cloud of previous litigation and is once again being discussed in the same breath as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other major coins.
That resurgence may be reinforcing the confidence of Ripple’s leadership in seeking a political settlement that would cement XRP’s status in institutional markets. For Hoskinson, however, the very fact that large‑cap tokens can thrive under the current “chaotic” regime is one more reason not to rush into what he sees as a damaging compromise.
What Comes Next
The clash between Hoskinson and Garlinghouse is more than a personal feud—it is a public manifestation of a strategic dilemma facing the entire industry. As lawmakers refine the Clarity Act and other bills, crypto’s power brokers will need to decide whether to:
– Accept a heavily SEC‑centric model for the sake of rapid clarity, or
– Continue fighting for a bespoke regime that recognizes the unique properties of decentralized networks.
Hoskinson is urging his peers to choose the latter, even if it means enduring more years of uncertainty. He frames the choice starkly: embrace “chaos” while pushing for genuine reform, or lock future generations of builders into a system designed to protect the very institutions crypto once set out to disrupt.
For now, the debate remains unresolved. But with leading voices like Hoskinson openly criticizing one of the sector’s most prominent CEOs, the fault lines in crypto’s regulatory strategy have never been more visible—and the outcome will shape how the next wave of innovation unfolds.