What’s The Beef Between Cardano And XRP? Here’s Why The Communities Are Clashing

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-01-22Last updated on 2026-01-22

Abstract

A public clash has emerged between the Cardano and XRP communities, stemming from a disagreement over US crypto regulation, specifically the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The conflict began when Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson criticized Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse for his support of the bill, despite its perceived shortcomings. Hoskinson questioned the wisdom of granting regulatory power to institutions that have previously targeted crypto businesses. This drew pushback from the XRP community, which questioned his public attack instead of constructive engagement. The Clarity Act aims to define whether digital assets are securities or commodities and assign regulatory oversight. While XRP supporters see engagement as a necessary step forward, others like Hoskinson remain skeptical. The bill's future is further complicated by reports that the White House may withdraw support if Coinbase does not return to negotiations on certain provisions.

A disagreement over US crypto regulation has spilled into public view, drawing the Cardano and XRP communities into an unexpected clash. The reason is the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a proposed bill intended to define how digital assets are regulated in the United States.

The disagreement started after Charles Hoskinson openly criticized Brad Garlinghouse over his stance on the legislation, which led to pushback from prominent XRP community members. This comes just after reports have suggested growing frustration among lawmakers toward Coinbase over disagreements tied to the Clarity Act.

Hoskinson’s Criticism And Garlinghouse’s Position In Full Context

The tension came to the surface during a livestream in January 2026, where Hoskinson criticized Garlinghouse’s apparent support for advancing the Clarity Act despite its shortcomings. In the video, Hoskinson expressed skepticism about the bill’s direction and origins, remarking sarcastically, “And what we got is Elizabeth Warren wrote the bill, that’s leadership we can believe in.”

He went on to challenge the idea that passing an imperfect bill is preferable to continued uncertainty, pointing directly to the position of Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse. Hoskinson questioned whether handing regulatory power to the same institutions that previously sued, subpoenaed, or shut down crypto businesses could truly be considered progress.

Hoskinson’s remarks did not go unanswered. Vet, a notable XRP community member and XRP Ledger dUNL validator, reposted the video on X and criticized Hoskinson’s approach. Vet questioned why Hoskinson chose to publicly attack Garlinghouse instead of contributing constructively to the legislative process, writing, “How about focusing on helping shape the Clarity Bill instead of crashing out on Brad for no reason, Charles?”

Why The Clarity Act Matters To Both Communities

The Clarity Act is one of a few bills introduced during the current crypto-positive Trump administration that aims to bring structure to a regulatory environment that has been uncertain for years. The Clarity Act, in particular, was introduced to bring clarity around whether digital assets should be treated as securities or commodities and which agencies should oversee them.

The bill represents a necessary step toward legal certainty and institutional participation. Supporters of XRP tend to see engagement with lawmakers as a practical route forward after years of legal battles. However, others like Charles Hoskinson are of a different notion.

The Clarity Act is not without its issues. Sources close to the White House say the administration is considering pulling its support for the Clarity Act if Coinbase does not return to negotiations over stablecoin yield provisions. However, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong noted that Coinbase is actively working to find common ground with banks on yield-related issues.

A similar Act, called the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act, or the “GENIUS Act,” was signed into law in 2025 by President Donald Trump as part of efforts to create better regulatory clarity towards stablecoins in the United States.

Interestingly, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse was part of the crypto industry leaders that expressed support for the Genius Act after it was signed into law.

XRP trading at $1.90 on the 1D chart | Source: XRPUSDT on Tradingview.com

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat is the primary reason for the clash between the Cardano and XRP communities?

AThe primary reason is a disagreement over the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a proposed US crypto regulation bill, which led to public criticism from Cardano's Charles Hoskinson directed at Ripple's Brad Garlinghouse.

QWhat specific criticism did Charles Hoskinson level against Brad Garlinghouse?

AHoskinson criticized Garlinghouse for supporting the advancement of the Clarity Act despite its shortcomings, questioning the wisdom of giving regulatory power to institutions that have previously taken aggressive actions against crypto businesses.

QHow did a prominent XRP community member respond to Hoskinson's comments?

AA notable XRP community member and validator named Vet reposted the video on X and criticized Hoskinson for publicly attacking Garlinghouse instead of constructively helping to shape the bill.

QWhat is the main goal of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act?

AThe main goal of the Clarity Act is to bring regulatory clarity by defining whether digital assets should be treated as securities or commodities and determining which US agencies should oversee them.

QWhich other significant crypto regulation act was recently signed into law, and who supported it?

AThe GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act) was signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2025. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse was among the crypto industry leaders who expressed support for it.

Related Reads

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

The Bank of Japan (BOJ) kept its benchmark interest rate at 1% on July 31, as widely expected, following a June hike to a 31-year high. The decision passed with an 8-1 vote, with board member Hajime Takata again dissenting in favor of a hike to 1.25%. Despite holding rates steady, the BOJ signaled a hawkish tilt, warning that underlying inflation is likely to accelerate and exceed 2% from the latter half of the fiscal year. While it slightly lowered its core inflation forecast for FY2026, officials expressed stronger confidence that an overshoot will occur later, driven by yen weakness, corporate pricing behavior, and lingering energy shock effects. Markets were focused on the BOJ's forward guidance. Analysts noted the central bank appeared to balance short-term caution with a long-term warning of tighter policy. Governor Kazuo Ueda faces the challenge of reconciling a government reluctant to tighten further with bond markets already pricing in additional hikes, with the timing of the next move debated. Adding complexity, the BOJ reportedly intervened in currency markets hours before the rate decision, buying yen to support the currency which had fallen to 40-year lows against the dollar. Yen weakness stems from the wide U.S.-Japan interest rate gap, high fuel prices, and market skepticism about the pace of BOJ policy normalization. The yield on Japan's 10-year government bonds fell to 2.8%, indicating investor expectations for future monetary tightening.

cryptonews.ru8m ago

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

cryptonews.ru8m ago

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

This article argues that the SK H力士 2x Leveraged ETF (7709) is fundamentally a negative expected value (EV) product, rather than simply a "double SK H力士" investment. Its core issue stems from its daily rebalancing mechanism to maintain a 2x leverage target. After a price move, the fund must buy more after a rise or sell after a fall to readjust its leverage, creating a systematic pattern of buying high and selling low. This introduces a "delay loss": it always reacts to past price changes, missing potential gains from adjusting earlier during an uptrend and suffering greater losses from adjusting later during a downtrend. While more frequent intraday rebalancing would improve returns in strong, smooth trending markets by reinvesting profits or cutting losses sooner, it also dramatically increases volatility drag (frictional losses) during choppy, oscillating markets due to more frequent high-buy/low-sell trades. The author draws a parallel to an option seller who delta hedges (short gamma), which involves similar "buy high, sell low" dynamic hedging. However, unlike an option seller who receives upfront premium (IV and theta) as compensation for this risk, the leveraged ETF investor receives no such compensation. Instead, they bear all the path-dependent volatility decay, plus additional costs like swap/derivatives financing, management fees, and trading slippage. Thus, the product's return profile can be framed as: 2x directional return minus realized variance drag minus financing costs minus derivatives costs minus management fees minus transaction costs. For the investor to profit, SK H力士's price must not only rise significantly but do so in a strong, sustained, and smooth trend to overcome these inherent structural costs. High volatility and frequent price reversals are particularly damaging. The article also notes that while the ETF has no explicit liquidation line like perpetual futures, avoiding a sudden "blow-up," its net asset value can still decay towards zero over time through this combination of volatility drag and fees. For experienced traders, directly managing leverage via perpetual contracts may offer more control and potentially lower costs than this packaged, mechanistic product.

marsbit15m ago

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

marsbit15m ago

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

The article discusses the growing debate over whether TradeXYZ, which dominates Hyperliquid's HIP-3 market with over 90% of its volume, might break away to build its own independent trading platform. This possibility is fueled by TradeXYZ's immense market influence and the common industry trend of successful projects seeking more control and profit capture. Key arguments for a potential split include TradeXYZ's overwhelming contribution to Hyperliquid's metrics and the financial incentive to retain all transaction fees, as it currently splits them 50/50 with Hyperliquid. The piece draws parallels to other cases, like Anthropic's "Claude Code" competing with its former partner Cursor, suggesting "betrayal" can occur when business leverage shifts. However, strong counterarguments suggest a split is unlikely or would be detrimental. TradeXYZ relies on Hyperliquid's high-performance infrastructure and its platform as a primary user acquisition channel. Building a comparable system would be challenging. Furthermore, the founders of both projects share a history of trust and mutual admiration. The analysis concludes that a separation would likely be a lose-lose scenario: Hyperliquid would lose a major growth narrative and trading volume, while TradeXYZ would face technical hurdles, user migration issues, and reputational damage, potentially allowing competitors to seize market share. The most rational path is seen as continued collaboration, with TradeXYZ potentially negotiating better terms while leveraging Hyperliquid's established strengths.

marsbit25m ago

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

marsbit25m ago

Trading

Spot

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