Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson blasted Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse for supporting an imperfect bill on crypto market structure, warning that bad regulation could become permanent.
Summary
- Hoskinson slammed Garlinghouse for backing an “imperfect” crypto bill draft
- Ripple’s CEO argued that workable regulation is better than ongoing uncertainty
- Debate highlights growing tension over DeFi protection vs pro-clarity compromises
A fresh public clash has erupted between two of crypto’s biggest industry voices, as Cardano (ADA) founder Charles Hoskinson criticized Ripple (XRP) CEO Brad Garlinghouse over the latest U.S. crypto market structure legislation.
The dispute highlights growing tension inside the industry over whether crypto should accept “good enough” rules now, or fight harder for stronger, fairer frameworks that don’t disproportionately benefit traditional financial incumbents.
Hoskinson’s comments came after Garlinghouse praised lawmakers for pushing forward “workable frameworks,” suggesting that “clarity beats chaos” and that remaining issues could be addressed during the markup process. Hoskinson strongly rejected that approach, arguing that compromising on flawed regulation could lock the industry into long-term damage.
Charles Hoskinson key debate points
- Hoskinson criticized Garlinghouse for backing a bill many believe could favor banks and incumbents over open crypto innovation
- Ripple’s CEO supported “workable frameworks,” emphasizing that regulatory clarity is better than uncertainty
- Hoskinson warned that passing “imperfect” legislation could be a lasting mistake if it expands regulator power and limits DeFi
Hoskinson pushes back on ‘Clarity Beats Chaos’
In a livestream shared from his official X account, Hoskinson mocked the idea of accepting a flawed bill simply because it creates a clearer regulatory path. His core argument was simple: once a framework becomes law, it can be extremely difficult to reverse or reform, leaving the crypto industry stuck operating under restrictive rules for years.
Hoskinson framed this moment as bigger than a political win or loss. Instead, he described it as an existential decision about whether crypto remains an open, permissionless innovation layer, or becomes another regulated system shaped primarily by legacy financial interests.
What Garlinghouse is supporting (and why it matters)
Garlinghouse’s stance reflects a more pragmatic strategy: secure a workable baseline for regulation now, then refine it over time. Supporters of this approach argue that the lack of clarity has harmed U.S.-based innovation, driven talent offshore, and created uncertainty for businesses trying to operate legally.
Garlinghouse’s comments signal optimism that lawmakers can repair issues through the markup process rather than scrapping the framework altogether. From Ripple’s perspective, any progress that reduces regulatory confusion may be viewed as a net positive, even if the bill is not perfect on day one.
The DeFi vs. Incumbents fight is the real battle
Hoskinson’s frustration also reflects a wider industry concern: that a market structure bill could unintentionally (or deliberately) tilt the playing field away from decentralized finance and toward heavily regulated institutions, including banks and centralized intermediaries.
While regulation can accelerate adoption, the details matter. If the rules increase compliance burdens for new projects while carving out advantages for large incumbents, innovation could slow and smaller ecosystems could struggle to compete. That’s why this debate is creating friction even among pro-crypto leaders who generally agree that clearer regulation is needed.
What to expect next
For now, the clash between Hoskinson and Garlinghouse is a sign of what’s coming: more public disagreements as crypto leaders try to influence how U.S. regulation is shaped. One side wants immediate structure, even if imperfect. The other side believes it’s worth enduring uncertainty to avoid cementing rules that could restrict crypto’s future.
