Cardano Founder Blasts Ripple For Playing Dirty With New CLARITY Act, Here’s What He Said

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-04-01Last updated on 2026-04-01

Abstract

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has launched a direct attack against Ripple and its CEO Brad Garlinghouse, accusing them of engineering the CLARITY Act to shield Ripple’s interests while harming the broader crypto ecosystem. Hoskinson claims the bill, in its current form, would classify most digital assets as securities by default, forcing projects into a difficult regulatory process. He warns this could expose open-source developers to legal risks and remove protections for DeFi builders. He also criticized the XRP community, alleging years of propaganda have eroded critical thinking. Hoskinson has consistently opposed the bill, suggesting it unfairly benefits XRP. The probability of the CLARITY Act being signed into law has fallen to 51%, down from 78% in early March.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has launched one of his most direct attacks yet on Ripple and its CEO Brad Garlinghouse, accusing the payments company of engineering the CLARITY Act to eliminate competition while shielding its own interests.

The remarks were delivered during Hoskinson’s most recent weekly rollup on YouTube, where he laid out what he believes is a deeper issue surrounding the bill and how it could change competition across the crypto sector.

Hoskinson Accuses Ripple Of Playing Dirty

According to Charles Hoskinson, the CLARITY Act, in its current form, was crafted with Ripple’s fingerprints on it. He is of the notion that the bill’s structure would classify most digital assets as securities by default, forcing projects to fight their way out of that designation through a regulatory process he warned the SEC could easily weaponize. “They’re trying to pass a bill that hurts the entire ecosystem while they get protected,” he said.

As noted by Hoskinson, if the CLARITY Act is passed, projects would need to prove otherwise, effectively placing the burden of defense on developers and startups from the outset.

Open-source contributors could face legal risks even when they are not directly responsible for how their code is used. He pointed to the legal exposure faced by developers connected to Tornado Cash as an example of what could become standard practice if the CLARITY Act passes in its current form.

He also flagged the removal of existing protections for DeFi developers as a provision that would send a chilling signal across the entire community of crypto developers.

Cardano Founder Says XRP Community Is Incapable Of Critical Thinking

Hoskinson also reserved some of his remarks for members of the XRP community. He accused Ripple directly of conducting a sustained campaign of layer after layer of marketing and propaganda. Furthermore, years of social media consumption, cable news, and yellow journalism have left segments of the XRP community with an inability to think critically.

Hoskinson has been building this argument over several months, and his recent statements tie into a broader pattern of criticism against Ripple and the CLARITY Act.

Back in early March, he noted that the CLARITY Act’s structure effectively labels everything as a security first, creating a system where only a few projects will be spared. He suggested that XRP could be among the assets that receive more favorable treatment under the framework proposed by the CLARITY Act.

His criticism against Brad Garlinghouse has also been very persistent. A notable example is during a January 2026 livestream where he questioned why the Ripple CEO is supportive of advancing the bill despite its perceived flaws.

Polymarket odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026 have now fallen to 51%, down from above 78% in early March, following Coinbase’s opposition to a stablecoin yield compromise and the departure of crypto czar David Sacks from his role.

ADA trading at $0.24 on the 1D chart | Source: ADAUSDT on Tradingview.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the main accusation Charles Hoskinson makes against Ripple regarding the CLARITY Act?

ACharles Hoskinson accuses Ripple of engineering the CLARITY Act to eliminate competition while shielding its own interests, claiming the bill is crafted with Ripple's fingerprints on it.

QAccording to Hoskinson, what would be the default classification for most digital assets under the CLARITY Act?

AAccording to Hoskinson, the CLARITY Act's structure would classify most digital assets as securities by default.

QWhat potential legal risk does Hoskinson highlight for open-source contributors if the CLARITY Act passes?

AHoskinson warns that open-source contributors could face legal risks even when not directly responsible for how their code is used, citing the legal exposure faced by Tornado Cash developers as an example.

QWhat does Hoskinson claim about the XRP community's ability to think critically?

AHoskinson claims that years of marketing, propaganda, and media consumption have left segments of the XRP community with an inability to think critically.

QWhat has happened to the Polymarket odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026, and what are the cited reasons?

AThe Polymarket odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026 have fallen to 51% from above 78% in early March, following Coinbase's opposition to a stablecoin yield compromise and the departure of crypto czar David Sacks.

Related Reads

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

The article explains that the key to profiting on Polymarket, a prediction market platform, lies not just predicting real-world events correctly, but in meticulously understanding the specific rules that govern how each market will be resolved. It illustrates this with examples, such as a market on Venezuela's 2026 leader, where the official rules defining "officially holds" the office overruled the intuitive answer of who was in practical control. Other examples include debates over the definition of a "token" or what constitutes an "agreement." The core argument is that a "reality vs. rules" gap creates pricing discrepancies that savvy traders ("车头" or "whales") exploit. The platform has a formal dispute resolution process managed by UMA token holders to settle ambiguous outcomes. This process involves proposal submission, a challenge window, a discussion period, and a final vote. However, the article highlights a critical flaw in this system compared to a traditional court: the lack of separation between the arbiters (UMA voters) and the interested parties (traders with financial stakes in the outcome). This conflict of interest undermines the discussion phase, leads to herd mentality, and results in opaque final decisions without explanatory rulings. Consequently, the system lacks a body of precedent, making it difficult for users to learn from past disputes. The ultimate takeaway is that success on Polymarket requires a lawyer-like scrutiny of the rules to identify and capitalize on the cognitive gap between how events appear and how they are contractually defined for settlement.

marsbit22m ago

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

marsbit22m ago

Will the Fed Still Cut Interest Rates? Tonight's Data Is Crucial

The core debate surrounding the Federal Reserve's potential interest rate cuts is intensifying amid geopolitical conflict and rebounding inflation. The key question is whether high energy prices will cause persistent inflation or weaken consumer demand enough to force the Fed to cut rates. Citigroup presents a bullish case for cuts, arguing that oil supply disruptions from the Strait of Hormuz are temporary and will not lead to lasting inflationary pressure. They point to receding bond yields and oil prices as evidence the market is pricing in a short-lived shock. Citi's data also shows tightening financial conditions, a stabilizing labor market, and healthy tax returns, supporting their view that the path to lower rates remains open. Conversely, Deutsche Bank offers a starkly contrasting, more hawkish outlook. They argue the Fed's current policy is already neutral and expect rates to remain unchanged indefinitely. Their view is based on stalled disinflation progress and a shift toward more hawkish rhetoric from key Fed officials like Waller, who cited risks from prolonged Middle East conflict and tariffs. Other officials, including Williams and Hammack, signaled rates would likely stay on hold for a "considerable time." The market pricing has shifted dramatically, now forecasting zero cuts in 2026. The imminent release of the March retail sales "control group" data is highlighted as a critical test. This metric, which excludes gas station sales, will reveal if high gasoline prices are eroding consumer spending in other areas. A weak reading could support the case for imminent rate cuts, while a strong one would bolster the argument for the Fed to hold steady. This data is pivotal for determining the near-term policy path.

marsbit43m ago

Will the Fed Still Cut Interest Rates? Tonight's Data Is Crucial

marsbit43m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ADA (ADA) are presented below.

活动图片