Cardano Founder Sounds Alarm Over New US Crypto Bill

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-03-03Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-03

Introduzione

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson strongly opposes the new U.S. crypto market structure bill, H.R. 3633, arguing it would harm innovation by classifying new digital assets as securities by default. He warns that the bill would force projects to undergo a difficult process to prove decentralization and potentially never escape securities classification. Hoskinson claims the SEC could exploit vague language to delay or block projects indefinitely, stifling new development in the U.S. and protecting older networks. He calls for a principles-based rewrite that modernizes securities laws and limits regulatory overreach, instead of a bill he believes enshrines the SEC's aggressive enforcement approach.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson is urging the crypto industry to take a harder look at H.R. 3633, arguing that the market structure bill could lock future US token projects into securities status rather than provide the regulatory clarity its backers promise. His criticism goes beyond process: Hoskinson says the bill, as written, could protect legacy networks while making it far harder for new crypto projects to launch and grow inside the United States.

Cardano Founder Issues A Stark Warning

In a video published March 2, the Cardano founder framed the dispute partly as a direct response to Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse’s view that a flawed bill is still preferable to no bill. Hoskinson rejected that outright. “A bad bill is not better than no bill,” he said. “You start from a principles-based approach. You don’t make everything a security by default, and you upgrade modernized securities laws so that’s not so bad.”

His core objection is that the Clarity Act would treat newly launched digital assets as securities first, then require them to convince the SEC they qualify to “graduate” into commodity status once their networks are sufficiently decentralized. In Hoskinson’s reading, that framework would have captured XRP, Cardano and Ethereum at launch. The difference, he argued, is that older networks may ultimately be grandfathered in, while future projects would face a regulatory maze from day one.

Hoskinson repeatedly returned to the same question: what, in practice, stops the SEC from keeping a token classified as a security indefinitely? “If it starts as a security, what stops them from keeping it as a security forever?” he asked. “And are we really sure that we can trust that to rulemaking that has yet to happen by people who have yet to be appointed by agencies that spent the last four [expletive] years suing everybody and throwing everybody in prison?”

From there, he laid out a series of what he called “attack vectors” that an adversarial SEC could use in rulemaking. One involved procedural delays around filing completeness, where the agency could keep resetting the clock with deficiency notices. Another focused on the bill’s undefined treatment of “common control,” which he said could let regulators interpret open-source coordination itself as evidence of centralized management.

He also argued that proving decentralization could become impossible if issuers were required to identify beneficial owners across pseudonymous wallet systems or rely on compliance categories the SEC has not even created.

The broad point was that the bill may look workable in statute but become punitive in implementation. “A bad bill enshrines into law every single thing Gary Gensler was trying to do to the industry,” Hoskinson said. “A bad bill through rulemaking allows the SEC to arbitrarily and capriciously kill every new project in the United States. A bad bill exposes all DeFi developers to personal liability.”

He also argued the current political fight in Washington is not really about the bill’s structure at all. According to Hoskinson, the real holdup is stablecoin yield, not developer protections, DeFi coverage or the SEC-CFTC split. In his telling, that leaves the industry in a strange place: a bill marketed as market structure reform, but one that “doesn’t cover the core of what’s going on in the industry right now.”

Hoskinson’s preferred alternative is a principles-based rewrite that modernizes securities law itself, builds blockchain-native disclosure rails, explicitly protects developers and DeFi, and limits how much discretion regulators can exercise in later rulemaking. Otherwise, he warned, the practical result may be simple: established networks survive, while the next generation of US crypto projects builds offshore first and only tries to enter the American market years later.

At press time, Cardano traded at $0.2692.

ADA hovers below key resistance, 1-week chart | Source: ADAUSDT on TradingView.com

Crypto di tendenza

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is Charles Hoskinson's main criticism of the H.R. 3633 crypto bill?

AHis main criticism is that the bill would treat newly launched digital assets as securities by default, forcing them to prove to the SEC that they qualify to 'graduate' into commodity status. He argues this creates a punitive regulatory maze for new projects while potentially grandfathering in older networks.

QAccording to Hoskinson, what is the real political holdup in Washington regarding crypto legislation?

AHe argues that the real holdup is not about the bill's market structure, but specifically about the issue of stablecoin yield, rather than developer protections, DeFi coverage, or the SEC-CFTC jurisdictional split.

QWhat specific 'attack vectors' does Hoskinson suggest an adversarial SEC could use under the proposed bill?

AHe suggests the SEC could use procedural delays by resetting the clock with deficiency notices on filing completeness and could exploit the bill's undefined treatment of 'common control' to interpret open-source coordination as evidence of centralized management.

QWhat is Hoskinson's preferred alternative to the current H.R. 3633 bill?

AHis preferred alternative is a principles-based rewrite that modernizes securities law itself, builds blockchain-native disclosure systems, explicitly protects developers and DeFi, and limits the discretion regulators have in future rulemaking.

QWhat does Hoskinson warn will be the practical result for the US crypto industry if this 'bad bill' passes?

AHe warns that established networks may survive, but the next generation of US crypto projects will be forced to build offshore first and only attempt to enter the American market years later, stifling innovation within the country.

Letture associate

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1 h fa

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1 h fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 h fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 h fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2 h fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2 h fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 h fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures

Articoli Popolari

Come comprare ADA

Benvenuto in HTX.com! Abbiamo reso l'acquisto di Cardano (ADA) semplice e conveniente. Segui la nostra guida passo passo per intraprendere il tuo viaggio nel mondo delle criptovalute.Step 1: Crea il tuo Account HTXUsa la tua email o numero di telefono per registrarti il tuo account gratuito su HTX. Vivi un'esperienza facile e sblocca tutte le funzionalità,Crea il mio accountStep 2: Vai in Acquista crypto e seleziona il tuo metodo di pagamentoCarta di credito/debito: utilizza la tua Visa o Mastercard per acquistare immediatamente CardanoADA.Bilancio: Usa i fondi dal bilancio del tuo account HTX per fare trading senza problemi.Terze parti: abbiamo aggiunto metodi di pagamento molto utilizzati come Google Pay e Apple Pay per maggiore comodità.P2P: Fai trading direttamente con altri utenti HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): Offriamo servizi su misura e tassi di cambio competitivi per i trader.Step 3: Conserva Cardano (ADA)Dopo aver acquistato Cardano (ADA), conserva nel tuo account HTX. In alternativa, puoi inviare tramite trasferimento blockchain o scambiare per altre criptovalute.Step 4: Scambia Cardano (ADA)Scambia facilmente Cardano (ADA) nel mercato spot di HTX. Accedi al tuo account, seleziona la tua coppia di trading, esegui le tue operazioni e monitora in tempo reale. Offriamo un'esperienza user-friendly sia per chi ha appena iniziato che per i trader più esperti.

1.3k Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2024.12.10Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Come comprare ADA

Discussioni

Benvenuto nella Community HTX. Qui puoi rimanere informato sugli ultimi sviluppi della piattaforma e accedere ad approfondimenti esperti sul mercato. Le opinioni degli utenti sul prezzo di ADA ADA sono presentate come di seguito.

活动图片