Hoskinson Blasts Ripple CEO Garlinghouse In Fresh Public Rant

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-01-19Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-19

Introduzione

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson criticized Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse in a video on January 18, 2026, for supporting the US Clarity Act, which Hoskinson argues would expand the SEC's authority and harm the crypto industry. He claimed the bill, with 137 amendments, would treat all new projects as securities by default, forcing them to seek regulatory relief. Hoskinson called this worse than the current regulatory uncertainty, accusing Garlinghouse and others of compromising too easily. He warned that passing a flawed bill would make meaningful change nearly impossible, citing the long-standing Securities Exchange Act of 1933. Hoskinson also expressed concerns about the industry moving toward custodial wallets, KYC, and reversible transactions, which he believes betray crypto's original revolutionary ethos. At the time of reporting, XRP was trading at $1.95.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson took aim at Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse in a January 18, 2026 video, criticizing what he framed as an industry push to accept the US Clarity Act on terms that would expand the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority over new projects.

Speaking on Jan 18, Hoskinson used a wide-ranging monologue on market fatigue, industry morale, and the mission behind Cardano and Midnight to zero in on a regulatory flashpoint: a bill he described as swollen by “137 amendments” and tilted toward the SEC. In his telling, the proposal would force crypto projects to “go beg and plead” for relief, with “all new projects” treated as securities by default.

Why Hoskinson Blasted Ripple CEO Garlinghouse

Hoskinson argued that the outcome would be a strategic own-goal, worse, in his view, than the policy uncertainty the industry has been trying to escape. “How is that any better than what Scary Gary [Gensler] gave us under Biden?” he said, referring to the SEC’s enforcement action against the crypto industry under former US President Joe Biden, before extending the critique to lobbying and political dealmaking more broadly.

Hoskinson’s sharpest remarks came when he cited unnamed industry figures he suggested are urging compromise, then called out Garlinghouse directly. “Still got people like Brad [Garlinghouse] saying well it’s not perfect but we just got to get something,” he said. “You know, it’s better than no clarity. Hand it to the same people who sued us. Hand it to the same people who put us out of business, who subpoenaed us, who put us in jail. That’s better. That’s what we fought for.”

He then framed the decision as effectively irreversible once legislated, invoking the long life of US securities law to argue that a flawed framework would calcify. “And tell me, how do we change it? Like we changed the Securities Exchange Act of 1933,” Hoskinson said. “93 years later, have we been able to change it? No. You pass it, you own it forever. Sorry, Brad. It’s not better than chaos. Take the chaos and fight for what’s right. Fight for integrity.”

While the Garlinghouse jab was the most explicit, Hoskinson placed it inside a larger narrative: that crypto’s purpose is being reduced to a lobbying-driven contest for acceptable market access rather than an attempt to redesign how value and identity are handled online.

He argued that the industry is at risk of normalizing a world of “custodial wallet” defaults, pervasive KYC, and reversible transactions, outcomes he associated with legacy power structures rather than the original “revolution” ethos.

“I didn’t sign up to hand the revolution to 15 banks,” he said, describing a future where transactions can be “frozen at a whim.” Hoskinson linked those concerns to a broader critique of technological surveillance and what he called the loss of individual “agency,” suggesting the industry’s incentive structure is pulling leaders toward comfort and access rather than confrontation.

The remarks landed amid a separate thread in his talk: a rebuke of what he called “toxic learned hopelessness” in crypto discourse. Hoskinson said he had stopped using X/Twitter, still broadcasting, but not reading or engaging—arguing that constant outrage and demands for instant announcements distort how long negotiations and product development actually work.

At press time, XRP traded at $1.95.

XRP falls into the red support zone again, 1-week chart | Source: XRPUSDT on TradingView.com

Domande pertinenti

QWhat was the main criticism Charles Hoskinson directed at Brad Garlinghouse in his January 18, 2026 video?

AHoskinson criticized Garlinghouse for advocating to accept the US Clarity Act despite its flaws, arguing that compromising with a bill that expands SEC authority and treats all new projects as securities by default is worse than regulatory chaos.

QAccording to Hoskinson, what negative outcomes would the proposed regulatory framework lead to for the crypto industry?

AHoskinson argued it would force crypto projects to beg for relief, treat all new projects as securities by default, normalize custodial wallets, pervasive KYC, and reversible transactions, ultimately handing control to traditional banks and allowing transactions to be frozen at a whim.

QWhy does Hoskinson believe that passing a flawed regulatory framework would be effectively irreversible?

AHe invoked the long life of US securities law, specifically referencing the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 which hasn't been changed in over 93 years, arguing that once such a framework is passed, the industry would be stuck with it forever.

QBeyond criticizing Garlinghouse, what broader concern did Hoskinson express about the crypto industry's direction?

AHe expressed concern that the industry's purpose is being reduced to a lobbying-driven contest for acceptable market access rather than a revolution to redesign how value and identity are handled online, and that leaders are being pulled toward comfort and access rather than confrontation.

QWhat did Hoskinson say about his own engagement with social media platform X/Twitter?

AHoskinson stated that he had stopped using X/Twitter in terms of reading or engaging with content, though he still broadcasts, due to what he called 'toxic learned hopelessness' and the distortion that constant outrage and demands for instant announcements create.

Letture associate

Analyzing the Impact of AI on Economic Growth and Productivity

**Title: Analyzing AI's Impact on Economic Growth and Productivity** This article examines three contrasting views on AI's influence on economic growth and productivity. **The Optimistic View** posits that AI, especially through automating R&D ("recursive self-improvement"), could dramatically accelerate growth, even triggering a technological "singularity" with explosive, potentially infinite, economic expansion. **The Moderate/Mainstream View** acknowledges AI's productivity benefits but emphasizes significant real-world constraints that could limit its impact. These include: limited cost savings per task, structural ceilings on which jobs and industries are "exposed" to AI, adoption bottlenecks (e.g., compute, energy, regulatory hurdles), and the "weak link" effect where non-automatable tasks cap overall gains. Consequently, the realized AI dividend may be far lower than optimistic projections, with estimates typically ranging from 0.1% to 1.3% annual productivity growth. **The Pessimistic View** stems from two strands. The first aligns with the moderate view but applies extremely conservative assumptions about task exposure and efficiency gains, yielding minimal projected impact. The second introduces a demand-side critique: if AI primarily replaces rather than augments labor, it could depress labor's share of income, weaken consumer demand, and create a "demand trap" that ultimately stifles growth, unless offset by redistribution policies. **The authors' assessment** is nuanced: * **Short-term (1-2 years):** AI will support growth primarily through investment spending, not significant productivity gains. * **Medium-term (3-5 years):** Three potential paths emerge based on AI demand and bottleneck severity: 1. **"Optimistic Path":** High demand, few bottlenecks. Rapid productivity gains but risk of major job displacement and social conflict without redistribution. 2. **"Moderate Path" (most likely):** High demand but significant, surmountable bottlenecks. Leads to moderate productivity gains, financial market volatility (K-shaped returns), and sectoral job losses. 3. **"Pessimistic Path":** Low demand or severe bottlenecks. Minimal productivity and growth impact, triggering financial market corrections but allowing a smoother societal transition with less labor disruption. * **Long-term:** AI holds potential for a major productivity revolution and prosperity. The conclusion stresses that no path is smooth. Technologically "optimistic" outcomes could be socially detrimental, while "pessimistic" technological diffusion might be more socially stable. Policymakers must monitor developments and prepare balanced responses to manage economic, financial, and social sustainability.

marsbit27 min fa

Analyzing the Impact of AI on Economic Growth and Productivity

marsbit27 min fa

The New Cold War is a Tech Stock War

The New Cold War is a Tech Stock War The article argues that the contemporary geopolitical and economic rivalry between the US and China represents a "New Cold War," but one fundamentally fought through technology and financial markets, not physical barriers or conventional trade. Historically, US dominance was secured through financial systems. The Soviet Union, reliant on the rigid "Transferable Ruble," was ultimately undermined by its dependency on the US dollar for oil trade. Later, Japan's semiconductor challenge was countered not just by tariffs (e.g., Plaza Accord, 301 investigations) but by binding it to US Treasury bonds. China presents a more complex, "embedded" challenger. While it holds vast dollar reserves and US debt like Japan, its industrial base is stronger and more diversified than the Soviet Union's. Surviving the initial 2018 trade war phase, the conflict has evolved into a "tech-financial war." The core battlefield is now the stock market. US tech stocks (AI, semiconductors) are treated as sovereign assets, buoyed by bipartisan national will. China is pushing to strengthen its own financial markets to convert industrial strength into financial power and fund its tech ambitions. Companies like ChangXin (semiconductors), Moonshot AI, and DJI compete not just for market share but as financial proxies for their respective systems. The new paradigm is moving from globally efficient monopolies (Apple, Google) towards companies that achieve monopolistic profits within their respective geopolitical spheres. This competition over "pricing power" and financial valuation in segmented markets defines the current era, making the stock market the primary arena for this tech-centric struggle.

marsbit37 min fa

The New Cold War is a Tech Stock War

marsbit37 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片