Cardano Founder Claims Ripple CEO Yielded to SEC in Regulatory Battle

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson recently criticized Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse for advocating a compromise on U.S. crypto legislation that could potentially increase regulatory authority and subject new projects to securities rules. In a video released on January 18th, Hoskinson expressed his concerns about the U.S. Clarity Act, which he claimed has expanded to include 137 amendments that would give more power to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in overseeing crypto projects. He argued that this legislation would force crypto projects to seek regulatory approval from the SEC, ultimately hindering innovation and progress in the industry.

During his video monologue, Hoskinson specifically called out Garlinghouse for his stance on the legislation. He criticized leaders in the industry, including Garlinghouse, for seemingly accepting the flawed legislation as a necessary compromise. Hoskinson expressed his frustration with the idea of surrendering to the same regulatory authorities that have caused issues for the crypto industry in the past, such as lawsuits and subpoenas.

Hoskinson highlighted the risks of accepting compromised legislation, pointing to the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 as an example of how flawed laws can become permanent fixtures. He emphasized the importance of not rushing into legislation that could have long-lasting consequences for the industry and urged for more thoughtful consideration and dialogue among industry leaders.

The crux of the issue, as Hoskinson sees it, is the direction in which the cryptocurrency industry is heading. He cautioned against normalizing practices that could compromise the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies, such as defaulting to custodial wallets, strict know-your-customer requirements, and the ability to reverse transactions. By accepting compromises that prioritize market access over maintaining the core principles of the industry, Hoskinson believes that crypto leaders are risking the integrity of the revolution that cryptocurrencies were meant to bring about.

Hoskinson’s concerns reflect a broader debate within the industry about the balance between regulatory compliance and innovation. While some argue that working within the existing regulatory framework is necessary for broader adoption and acceptance, others, like Hoskinson, warn against compromising the fundamental principles of decentralization and financial sovereignty that underpin cryptocurrencies.

As the industry grapples with regulatory challenges, it is clear that the decisions made now will have far-reaching implications for the future of cryptocurrencies. Hoskinson’s critique serves as a reminder of the importance of thoughtful consideration and advocacy for maintaining the core values of cryptocurrencies in the face of regulatory pressures and compromises.