Hoskinson Blasts Ripple CEO Garlinghouse In Fresh Public Rant

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-01-19Última atualização em 2026-01-19

Resumo

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

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手Há 8h

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Há 8h

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbitHá 11h

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHá 11h

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手Há 12h

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手Há 12h

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbitHá 13h

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbitHá 13h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片