Charles Hoskinson Blasts Ripple For Backing Bill That Could Crush Competition

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-03-31Last updated on 2026-03-31

Abstract

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has sharply criticized Ripple and its CEO Brad Garlinghouse for supporting proposed U.S. legislation that would classify most new tokens as securities by default. Hoskinson argues this approach would harm competition, protect established players like Ripple through exemptions, and remove legal protections for DeFi and open-source developers. He warns the bill replicates the SEC’s aggressive regulatory stance and could expose software creators to unreasonable liability. Hoskinson also addressed the XRP community, clarifying that his criticism targets Ripple’s lobbying—not the token itself—and contrasted Ripple’s “mammoth premine” with Cardano’s more distributed token distribution.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson used a lengthy weekly livestream to level one of his sharpest recent attacks at Ripple, arguing that the company is backing legislation that could entrench incumbents, weaken DeFi protections, and make it harder for new crypto projects to compete.

The core of Hoskinson’s complaint was not aimed at XRP holders, but at what he described as Ripple’s policy posture in Washington and the behavior of CEO Brad Garlinghouse. In Hoskinson’s telling, Ripple is pushing for rules that would classify new tokens as securities by default while benefiting from carve-outs that would leave larger, established players in a stronger position.

Hoskinson Takes Aim At Ripple Over Competition Fight

Hoskinson said Garlinghouse was “trying to pass a bill that makes everything by default a security until proven otherwise,” calling that framework a non-starter for the broader market. He argued that such an approach would effectively recreate the kind of regulatory pressure that former SEC Chair Gary Gensler brought to the sector, only this time through legislation supported by industry actors rather than enforcement alone.

“He’s trying to pass a bill that makes everything by default a security until proven otherwise, which was the treatment Gary Gensler inflicted on his own ecosystem,” Hoskinson said. “It’s a non-starter, because he knows that he’s going to get an exemption and it reduces competition. So, [expletive] the whole industry. It’s bad behavior.”

That argument sat at the center of a wider rant about market structure, lobbying, and what Hoskinson sees as crypto’s growing willingness to trade open competition for regulatory protection. He said he had already laid out “four different attack vectors” the SEC could use if such a bill were enacted, and warned that the damage would not stop with token issuers.

According to Hoskinson, the proposal would also leave open-source developers exposed by stripping out protections for DeFi builders. “The bill also removed all developer protections for DeFi developers,” he said. “Who takes care of the Tornado Cash people and these other people writing open-source software? We can’t live in a space where you have transitive unlimited liability.”

He extended that point with one of the livestream’s longer analogies, arguing that holding software developers liable for downstream use of their code would amount to a category error. “You write code and people you’ve never met use that code in places you’ve never been to and you’re held absolutely liable for that,” Hoskinson said. “That’s equivalent to you writing a book, someone reads the book and murders somebody based on a character in your book and then you get charged with murder. It’s basically the same thing.”

Hoskinson also took aim at what he described as the XRP community’s reflexive defense of Ripple whenever he criticizes the company. He said there is “no path for people to listen to the content” of his argument because any criticism of Garlinghouse is treated as an attack on XRP itself. He pushed back on that framing by noting that he publicly supported Ripple when the SEC sued the company years ago, but said that did not obligate him to back its current lobbying goals.

“Guys, I did support you when you got sued by the Securities Exchange Commission,” he said. “There’s videos of me. You can pull them up from years ago where I said it was the wrong decision.”

From there, Hoskinson shifted into one of crypto’s oldest fault lines: token distribution. He argued that Ripple had no need for outside help in its legal fight because the organization “gave themselves a mammoth premine,” saying the company already had the resources to defend itself and pursue acquisitions. He contrasted that with Cardano, saying, “I didn’t give myself 70% of the ADA supply.”

At press time, XRP traded at $1.35.

XRP falls below the 200-week EMA again, 1-week chart | Source: XRPUSDT on TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is Charles Hoskinson's main criticism against Ripple in this article?

ACharles Hoskinson criticizes Ripple for backing legislation that would classify new tokens as securities by default, which he believes would entrench incumbents, weaken DeFi protections, reduce competition, and benefit established players like Ripple through exemptions.

QAccording to Hoskinson, what negative consequences would the proposed bill have for DeFi developers?

AHoskinson states the bill would remove developer protections for DeFi builders, exposing open-source developers to 'transitive unlimited liability' where they could be held liable for how others use their code, similar to holding an author responsible if someone committed murder after reading their book.

QHow does Hoskinson contrast Cardano's token distribution with Ripple's?

AHoskinson contrasts the two by stating that Ripple 'gave themselves a mammoth premine' of XRP, giving them ample resources, while emphasizing 'I didn't give myself 70% of the ADA supply' for Cardano.

QWhat does Hoskinson say about the XRP community's response to his criticism of Ripple?

AHoskinson says the XRP community has a reflexive defense mechanism where any criticism of Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse is treated as an attack on XRP itself, making it difficult for people to actually listen to the content of his arguments.

QWhat historical support does Hoskinson mention he provided to Ripple, and how does it relate to his current stance?

AHoskinson mentions he publicly supported Ripple years ago when the SEC sued the company, calling it 'the wrong decision,' but clarifies that this past support does not obligate him to back Ripple's current lobbying efforts for what he considers anti-competitive legislation.

Related Reads

In-depth: The Foreign Guest Genspark

The article "The Foreign Guest: Genspark" investigates the identity and business practices of AI startup Genspark, which presents itself as a Palo Alto-based "AI Costco" offering a subscription bundle of over 70 models and numerous AI agent tools. Despite its official Silicon Valley narrative, Genspark's founding team has deep roots in Chinese tech giant Baidu, a history systematically downplayed in its branding. The company actively cultivates an image as an elite US firm, heavily publicizing partnerships and endorsements from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft, while distancing itself from the Chinese AI community and obscuring its connections to Chinese investors and open-weight models (like those from DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax) that power its services. Genspark's core strategy involves rapidly cloning and integrating successful AI product concepts (e.g., from Perplexity, Manus, Plaud) into its unified platform, supported by aggressive marketing, including Super Bowl ads and paid native content in publications like The Wall Street Journal. Critically, the article suggests a significant portion of its engineering and product development is conducted by a team in Beijing, operating outside its official US corporate structure. This duality allows Genspark to leverage Chinese talent and models for efficiency and cost reduction while constructing a public facade as a purely American success story. The piece concludes that Genspark's most effective agent is its own corporate identity, meticulously engineered to obscure its Chinese underpinnings and be perceived solely as a Silicon Valley company.

marsbit40m ago

In-depth: The Foreign Guest Genspark

marsbit40m ago

Debate: Korean Workers Fear Unemployment, While Musk Envisions a Society 'Without Work'?

While South Korean auto workers fear job losses from robotics, Elon Musk envisions a future where AI and robots render most work optional. This article explores the growing tension between immediate anxieties over automation and long-term visions of a post-work society. The piece begins with recent strikes at Hyundai's Korean plants, where unions, amid standard wage negotiations, also sought job guarantees against advancing robotics—specifically mentioning Boston Dynamics' Atlas. This reflects how anxiety about technological displacement is emerging even before robots are fully capable of replacing skilled labor on assembly lines. The author argues that while current robotics still struggle with the nuanced, experiential knowledge of veteran workers, the *perception* of imminent replacement is fueling social conflict prematurely. This modern "Luddite" sentiment is compared to the 19th-century English textile workers who smashed machines. Historically, Luddites weren't simply anti-technology; they were protesting the rapid devaluation of their skills and the unequal distribution of productivity gains. Similarly, today's workers ask who will bear the cost of transition and share in the new wealth created by machines. In contrast, figures like Elon Musk propose an optimistic endpoint: with AI and robotics driving extreme abundance, the link between work and survival could break. He suggests concepts like "Universal High Income" could allow society to share the technological bounty, transforming work from a necessity into a choice. The core challenge, however, lies in the transition. The author notes that technology's benefits diffuse slowly, while its disruptive costs—job losses, skill obsolescence—can be concentrated and immediate. The risk is a painful interim period where productivity gains are captured by a few before new social contracts, safety nets, and retraining systems are established. The conclusion calls for proactive governance. Just as past industrial revolutions gave rise to labor standards and social safety nets, the robotics era needs its own frameworks. These should address job transition support, distribution of productivity gains, safety liability, and ethical deployment. Embracing such "constraints" is not opposition to progress but a necessary step to ensure technology benefits society broadly. The discussion sparked by Hyundai's workers, therefore, is not premature but essential.

marsbit53m ago

Debate: Korean Workers Fear Unemployment, While Musk Envisions a Society 'Without Work'?

marsbit53m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片