{"id":20144,"date":"2026-05-25T11:02:12","date_gmt":"2026-05-25T11:02:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/2026\/05\/25\/the-civil-war-inside-cardano-hoskinson-vs-the-foundation\/"},"modified":"2026-05-25T11:02:12","modified_gmt":"2026-05-25T11:02:12","slug":"the-civil-war-inside-cardano-hoskinson-vs-the-foundation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/2026\/05\/25\/the-civil-war-inside-cardano-hoskinson-vs-the-foundation\/","title":{"rendered":"The civil war inside Cardano: Hoskinson vs the foundation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> <br \/>\n<br \/><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/crypto.news\/app\/uploads\/2024\/09\/crypto-news-cardano-trading-chart-option07.webp\" \/><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Cardano launched its on-chain governance system in 2025 with the promise that ADA holders would finally control the network\u2019s $470 million treasury. Eighteen months later, that promise is producing exactly what it was designed to: a community that is now openly rejecting funding proposals from the project\u2019s founder. Charles Hoskinson is in a public, escalating dispute with the Cardano Foundation, Emurgo, and the DRep voter base he helped create. Three concurrent governance battles in 2026 have already shaped how Cardano\u2019s treasury gets spent, who controls the next generation of protocol development, and whether the network can preserve its identity as crypto\u2019s \u201cscience coin\u201d while its own elected representatives vote against research funding. This is the story almost no major outlet is telling properly.<\/p>\n<div id=\"cn-block-summary-block_e38e641dab64632f54f547ef4261d9f7\" class=\"cn-block-summary\">\n<p>\n        <span class=\"tabs__item is-selected\">Summary<\/span>\n    <\/p>\n<div class=\"cn-block-summary__content\">\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Cardano\u2019s DRep governance system has repeatedly voted against treasury proposals backed by Charles Hoskinson, Emurgo, and Input Output Global during multiple disputes in 2026.<\/li>\n<li>A proposed 32.9 million ADA research funding request tied to Leios scaling and quantum-resistant cryptography faced overwhelming opposition from DRep voters ahead of the June 8 vote deadline.<\/li>\n<li>Tensions between Hoskinson, the Cardano Foundation, and community delegates have raised questions about who now controls Cardano\u2019s long-term direction and treasury spending priorities.<\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><!-- .cn-block-summary --><\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The promise and the trap<\/h2>\n<p>Cardano spent more than seven years building toward Voltaire, the governance era that would hand control of the network from its founding entities to its community of (<a href=\"https:\/\/crypto.news\/price\/cardano\/\" target=\"_blank\">ADA<\/a>) holders. When the Plomin hard fork activated in early 2025, the system went live. ADA holders could now delegate their voting rights to \u201cDReps\u201d (Delegated Representatives), the on-chain equivalent of elected officials, who would vote on protocol changes and treasury withdrawals. The Cardano Constitution, ratified in 2024, gave DReps real authority. The treasury, which had grown to hundreds of millions of ADA from transaction fees and reserves, would be spent only with DRep approval.<\/p>\n<p>This was the dream. A blockchain that did what most crypto projects only said they did: handed real power to its users.<\/p>\n<p>What nobody quite anticipated is what happens when the founder of a network disagrees with the network\u2019s elected representatives.<\/p>\n<p>The first warning came in late 2025 with the Genesis ADA dispute. The first major test came in April 2026 when the Cardano Summit 2026 budget proposal hit the DRep voting system. And the third, still unfolding as of late May 2026, is the rejection of Input Output Global\u2019s \u201cCardano Vision 2026\u201d research proposal, which would fund the foundational work on Leios scaling and quantum-resistant cryptography. All three battles trace to the same underlying fault line: who decides what Cardano is for, and who gets to spend its money to get there.<\/p>\n<p>The story is not, strictly, about Hoskinson. It is about what happens to a project\u2019s founding figure when the governance system they helped design starts producing outcomes they did not expect. And it is happening, in public, with documented statements from every named participant, on a chain where every vote is permanently recorded.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Genesis ADA dispute: who owns what<\/h2>\n<p>The first fight set the tone for everything that followed.<\/p>\n<p>In November 2025, the major Cardano organizations (IO, Emurgo, the Cardano Foundation, Midnight Foundation, and Intersect) submitted a joint proposal to withdraw 70 million ADA from the on-chain treasury to fund what they described as critical 2026 integrations: stablecoin partnerships, custody providers, analytics services, cross-chain bridges, and price feed oracles. At the prevailing ADA price, this was roughly $18 million worth of treasury draw.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- .cn-block-related-link --><\/p>\n<p>Some community members pushed back. The argument was that Genesis ADA, the initial token allocations given to IO, Emurgo, and the Cardano Foundation when the network launched, should cover these integration costs rather than the community treasury. The implication was clear: if the founding entities benefit from these integrations, the founding entities should pay for them.<\/p>\n<p>Hoskinson responded on November 30 during a livestream he titled \u201cGenesis ADA.\u201d The remarks were direct. Genesis ADA was not a community treasury, he said. It was private earnings from the early-stage risk taken by the founding entities when the project could have failed. The allocations to IO and Emurgo were \u201crewards for building the original infrastructure, funding early operations, and supporting\u201d the network during a period of regulatory uncertainty. They were not, and had never been, public funds. Calls to redirect them now were \u201cretroactive and unfounded,\u201d he argued, because many of today\u2019s integrations did not even exist when Genesis ADA was defined.<\/p>\n<p>The deeper point, which Hoskinson made openly in the same livestream, was that the Genesis ADA debate was a proxy for something larger. Cardano was preparing for what he called a \u201cpentad\u201d governance restructure in 2026, moving from the original three-entity model (IO, Emurgo, Cardano Foundation) to a five-entity executive layer, adding the Midnight Foundation and Intersect. The expanded structure, he argued, was needed to compete with \u201clarge and aggressive industry players\u201d and coordinate negotiations for major infrastructure deals.<\/p>\n<p>The community pushback held. The 70 million ADA request became one of the most-discussed treasury proposals in Cardano\u2019s history, and the underlying tension between \u201cprivate earnings\u201d and \u201ccommunity treasury\u201d did not resolve. It carried into 2026.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Summit 2026 vote: the first time DReps said no<\/h2>\n<p>The second battle was procedurally smaller than the Genesis ADA dispute, but politically larger, because it produced a clean, public, on-chain outcome.<\/p>\n<p>In April 2026, Emurgo submitted a treasury withdrawal proposal to fund the Cardano Summit 2026 in Berlin and presence at Token 2049 in Singapore. The original request was for 14.07 million ADA, roughly $3.66 million at the time. The 2025 edition of the Summit had been approved under the same governance framework, and the funding had passed, so Emurgo went into the 2026 vote expecting a similar outcome.<\/p>\n<p>That is not what happened.<\/p>\n<p>DReps pushed back immediately. The 2026 budget nearly doubled the 2025 cost. ADA\u2019s price had fallen sharply through Q1 2026, sitting in the $0.24 to $0.30 range, and community sentiment had shifted toward what one DRep called \u201cdoing more with less.\u201d The proposal\u2019s gross budget was $2.26 million against a revenue target of only $450,000, an imbalance that became a focal point of criticism. The Cardano Foundation, in an unusual move for a major founding entity, abstained from the vote rather than backing Emurgo\u2019s request, stating it wanted \u201cto avoid directing the outcome.\u201d<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">NEW: Cardano Foundation Frederik Gregaard reveals he worked on Facebook\u2019s Libra (Diem) stablecoin, which was just two weeks from launching and aimed at billions of users, describing it as a basket-style currency <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/So75ouwWNh\">pic.twitter.com\/So75ouwWNh<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/cryptodotnews\/status\/2049198461690826966?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">April 28, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<p>Hoskinson weighed in publicly. On April 11, 2026, he posted to X, arguing that \u201cparties\u201d would not save ADA\u2019s price. Infrastructure would. He proposed the same money could fund \u201cup to six permanent offices worldwide that would operate like a hub in Buenos Aires,\u201d shifting Cardano\u2019s outreach model from event-based marketing to permanent local presence. He went further: the treasury, he argued, should stop issuing \u201cfree grants\u201d entirely, and funded projects should return up to 30 percent of capital to the treasury, which would then buy ADA from the market, creating natural buy pressure.<\/p>\n<p>The original proposal failed. Emurgo submitted a revised version requesting 7.8 million ADA (approximately $1.95 million), with the Foundation contributing an additional $380,000 internally. The revised version was, by analyst accounts, materially stronger than the original. The Cardano Foundation again abstained from voting on it, formally noting it wanted the community to decide independently.<\/p>\n<p>The Summit vote was, in plain terms, the first time the Cardano Foundation and Emurgo discovered they no longer set the budget themselves. DReps did. And the DReps, weighted by ADA delegations, were not in the mood to approve eight-figure event sponsorships during a price downturn.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The IO research proposal: the most consequential vote yet<\/h2>\n<p>The third battle is the most important one, and the one most likely to define what Cardano looks like in 2027 and beyond.<\/p>\n<p>In May 2026, Input Output Global submitted a proposal titled \u201cCardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure \u2013 IO Research.\u201d The request was for 32.9 million ADA in treasury funding (roughly $8.6 million at the prevailing price) to fund advanced research initiatives, including the Leios scaling technology and quantum-resistant cryptography. Leios is Cardano\u2019s next-generation consensus protocol upgrade, designed to sharply raise the network\u2019s transaction throughput, targeting the 2030 scaling strategy of 27 million monthly transactions. Quantum-resistant cryptography is the long-horizon defense against the threat that future quantum computers could break the elliptic curve cryptography that secures every major blockchain today.<\/p>\n<p>This was, in IO\u2019s framing, the foundational research that would keep Cardano relevant for the next decade.<\/p>\n<p>DReps started voting against it almost immediately.<\/p>\n<p>As of the week of May 19, 2026, with the vote scheduled to close on June 8, 86.72 percent of votes are \u201cNo,\u201d with only 13.28 percent supporting the proposal. Among the most influential opposing voices was a DRep operating under the name YUTA, who announced an abstention vote and argued the proposal \u201cmixes valuable research with what he considers unnecessary treasury spending.\u201d YUTA\u2019s stated preference was for the proposal to be split into separate submissions, so DReps could approve the Leios scaling work without simultaneously approving everything else IO had bundled with it.<\/p>\n<p>A separate cluster of Japanese DReps voted against the proposal on different grounds, raising structural concerns about how IO was using the treasury to fund what they saw as work that should be covered by Genesis ADA allocations. The argument echoed the November 2025 Genesis dispute almost verbatim, but with sharper teeth: this time, the DRep system was actually voting, and the votes were going against IO.<\/p>\n<p>Hoskinson\u2019s response was extraordinary by any measure of crypto founder discourse. He warned, publicly, that if the proposal failed, IO would not resubmit it. He warned that \u201clayoffs could follow if proposals fail.\u201d He warned that ADA\u2019s \u201cdownturn could become permanent if Cardano loses its research-driven edge.\u201d He criticized opposing DReps as undermining \u201cyears of technological progress\u201d for the sake of \u201cADA\u2019s temporary price downturn.\u201d And he warned that Cardano risked losing its identity as the \u201cscience coin,\u201d the reputation it had built over \u201cmore than a decade of development and hundreds of millions of dollars invested in peer-reviewed research and academic rigor.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The framing was that <a href=\"https:\/\/crypto.news\/cardano-governance-dispute-puts-iog-lab-at-risk\/\" target=\"_blank\">DReps<\/a> voting against the proposal were not just rejecting a budget request. They were rejecting the foundational identity of Cardano itself.<\/p>\n<p>DReps kept voting no.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What the three fights have in common<\/h2>\n<p>Step back from the specifics of each battle, and a pattern emerges that explains all three.<\/p>\n<p>The Cardano governance system was designed to give ADA holders real authority over treasury spending. The system is now exercising that authority. The DReps who hold delegated voting rights are not, on net, voting the way the founding entities want them to vote.<\/p>\n<p>This is not a failure of the governance system. It is the system working exactly as designed. The unstated assumption among many of the project\u2019s founding entities had been that Voltaire would produce a decentralized rubber stamp for proposals the founding entities themselves brought forward. The reality has been the opposite: DReps are rejecting proposals, including high-profile ones, from the project\u2019s most senior figures.<\/p>\n<p>There is a price dimension to all of this that cannot be ignored. ADA has been trapped in the $0.24 to $0.30 range since January 2026, down sharply from earlier highs. Treasury proposals that fund event marketing, large research initiatives, or anything that does not produce immediate measurable value have become much harder to pass in this environment. The community has, in effect, become a fiscal hawk. DReps are protecting the treasury because the treasury\u2019s purchasing power has shrunk, and they want to see clear returns on what little spending does occur.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">JUST IN: Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson tells community \u201cKeep pushing\u201d after 4 IOG treasury proposals are approved <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/Y3VFSCmiMc\">pic.twitter.com\/Y3VFSCmiMc<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/cryptodotnews\/status\/2058247589175136281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">May 23, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<p>There is also a structural dimension. The Cardano Foundation expanded its DRep delegation program in January 2026, adding 220 million ADA across 11 DReps. The move was designed, by the Foundation\u2019s framing, to distribute voting power more broadly and maintain coordinated governance participation. The unintended effect has been to create a class of DReps who are accountable to no single entity, and who can vote against any of the founding organizations, including the Foundation itself. The Foundation\u2019s abstention on the Summit 2026 votes is, in part, an acknowledgment that the Foundation itself can no longer count on the community to follow its lead.<\/p>\n<p>And there is a personal dimension. Hoskinson\u2019s public communication style has, by his own admission, contributed to the friction. In a Thanksgiving 2025 livestream, he openly accepted \u201cresponsibility for some of the tension\u201d and urged the ecosystem \u201cnot to polarize.\u201d The months that followed did not produce a less polarized ecosystem. The April 2026 \u201cno more parties\u201d post, the criticisms of DReps as undermining Cardano\u2019s research mission, and the recurring framing of disputes as existential threats to the project have not lowered the temperature.<\/p>\n<p>The deeper question is whether Cardano\u2019s founder still has the political capital to push proposals through a governance system designed to operate without him.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Foundation\u2019s careful position<\/h2>\n<p>The Cardano Foundation deserves separate attention because its conduct during these three battles has been notably different from Emurgo\u2019s, and notably different from IO\u2019s.<\/p>\n<p>The Foundation has not, in any of the three disputes, openly opposed <a href=\"https:\/\/crypto.news\/cardano-governance-fight-grows-as-hoskinson-audits-11000-daos\/\" target=\"_blank\">Hoskinson<\/a>. It has also not, in any of the three disputes, openly backed him. On the Summit 2026 vote, the Foundation abstained both times, formally stating its reasons. On the Genesis ADA dispute, the Foundation did not weigh in publicly. On the IO research proposal, the Foundation has stayed largely silent.<\/p>\n<p>What the Foundation has done is build governance infrastructure. The January 2026 DRep delegation expansion put 220 million ADA into circulation across 11 DReps. The Foundation has introduced new standards (CIP-0113, the Programmable Tokens standard) and backed tokenization initiatives. It has, in effect, focused on the structural work of making governance function rather than on the political work of taking sides in any particular vote.<\/p>\n<p>The Hoskinson-Foundation tension has surfaced periodically. In November 2025, Hoskinson posted criticism of the Foundation\u2019s spending discipline, framing it as resistance to \u201caccountability, oversight, or real KPIs.\u201d The Foundation\u2019s community and governance lead, Nicolas Cerny, responded by pushing back against what he called \u201cCF derangement syndrome\u201d and advising community members to practice \u201ccritical thinking rather than simply parroting the talking points of certain individuals.\u201d The exchange, conducted publicly on X, was unusually sharp for an organization-to-founder communication in crypto.<\/p>\n<p>The Foundation\u2019s quieter posture in 2026 may reflect an institutional judgment that the public fights are not worth having. Or it may reflect a strategic patience: if Hoskinson\u2019s relationship with the DRep community keeps deteriorating, the Foundation\u2019s careful neutrality becomes more valuable, not less.<\/p>\n<p>Either way, the asymmetry between the Foundation\u2019s silence and Hoskinson\u2019s public statements is one of the most telling features of the current dynamic.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">NEW: Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson considers becoming a DRep. Admits losing over $2.5B, selling assets, and shutting down projects while stressing Cardano needs purpose beyond price <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/oYAHAHoCUI\">pic.twitter.com\/oYAHAHoCUI<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/cryptodotnews\/status\/2058511326826426446?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">May 24, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What this means for ADA holders<\/h2>\n<p>For an ADA holder, the civil war has direct, material consequences that extend beyond founder drama.<\/p>\n<p>Treasury spending is now harder to approve. This is, on balance, neutral or positive for ADA\u2019s price in the short term, because every rejected proposal is a smaller draw against the treasury, which means less sell pressure from funded projects converting ADA to fiat. The Summit 2026 rejection alone kept approximately $3.66 million of ADA out of the market. The IO research proposal, if it fails as currently projected, would keep an additional $8.6 million from being sold.<\/p>\n<p>Treasury spending is also slower. The lag between proposal submission and DRep vote, combined with the now-common pattern of revisions and resubmissions, means projects requesting funding face longer timelines and more uncertainty. This is good for fiscal discipline. It is bad for execution speed, particularly for time-sensitive infrastructure work.<\/p>\n<p>The most consequential outcome for ADA holders is what happens to the founder. If Hoskinson follows through on the warning that IO will not resubmit the research proposal if it fails, the Cardano Vision 2026 research initiative would not proceed in its current form. IO\u2019s research division has been one of the project\u2019s strongest differentiators, the source of the peer-reviewed papers, academic partnerships, and \u201cscience coin\u201d reputation that has carried Cardano through multiple downturns. If that engine slows, Cardano\u2019s competitive position against Ethereum, Solana, and the broader Layer-1 field changes materially.<\/p>\n<p>For now, the situation is unresolved. The IO research proposal vote closes June 8, 2026. The pentad governance restructure is still under discussion. The Summit 2026 revised vote is still active. Each of these has the potential to either de-escalate the tension or sharpen it further, and there is no clear signal yet which direction the next round will move.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The deeper question<\/h2>\n<p>Strip away the specifics, and Cardano is testing a question every other major crypto project will eventually have to answer.<\/p>\n<p>What happens when a network\u2019s governance system, designed to give power to its community, starts producing outcomes the founding figures of the network disagree with?<\/p>\n<p>The honest answer is that this is what decentralization actually looks like. Bitcoin\u2019s founder is gone. Ethereum\u2019s founder has explicitly stepped back from operational influence. Cardano\u2019s founder is still active, still vocal, and still convinced his vision for the project is the correct one, but the governance system he helped design no longer requires the community to agree with him.<\/p>\n<p>That is not a failure mode. That is a feature. But it is a feature that produces visible discomfort when it operates against the founder\u2019s preferences, and the discomfort is now public, ongoing, and documented on-chain.<\/p>\n<p>Cardano\u2019s civil war is therefore not a crisis. It is a test. The project that emerges from 2026 will be either one where DReps and the founding entities have learned to coordinate productively, or one where the founding entities accept reduced political influence over a system that has, by design, outgrown them.<\/p>\n<p>Both outcomes are plausible. Neither is settled.<\/p>\n<p>The Pi Network community has spent years asking when tier-1 listings would arrive. The Cardano community is asking a harder question: when the founder of the network and the community of the network disagree, who actually decides?<\/p>\n<p>The answer, on chain, is increasingly clear. The DReps decide. Whether Hoskinson can rebuild political capital with that community, or whether Cardano will keep shipping through a governance system that no longer defers to him, is the story to watch through the rest of 2026 and into 2027.<\/p>\n<p>For now, the votes are running. The proposals are being rejected. And the man who built the system that produced this outcome is, by his own framing, watching his project lose the identity he spent over a decade building.<\/p>\n<p>That is the civil war. It is happening in public, in real time, and it is shaping Cardano in ways the project\u2019s founder did not anticipate when the system that produced it was first designed.<\/p>\n<p><em>This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Governance votes and ecosystem disputes evolve quickly; the figures and statements described reflect reporting available as of late May 2026. Always do your own research.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>    <!-- .cn-block-related-link --><\/p><\/div>\n<p><script async src=\"\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><br \/>\n<br \/><br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/crypto.news\/the-civil-war-inside-cardano-hoskinson-vs-the-foundation\/\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Cardano launched its on-chain governance system in 2025 with the promise that ADA holders would finally control the network\u2019s $470 million treasury. Eighteen months later, that promise is producing exactly what it was designed to: a community that is now openly rejecting funding proposals from the project\u2019s founder. Charles Hoskinson is in a public, escalating [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":20145,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"kronos_expire_date":[],"class_list":["post-20144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-crypto"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20144"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20144\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/20145"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20144"},{"taxonomy":"kronos_expire_date","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cryptoted.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kronos_expire_date?post=20144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}