Charles Hoskinson Blasts Ripple For Backing Bill That Could Crush Competition

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-03-31Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-31

Анотація

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has sharply criticized Ripple and its CEO Brad Garlinghouse for supporting proposed U.S. legislation that would classify most new tokens as securities by default. Hoskinson argues this approach would harm competition, protect established players like Ripple through exemptions, and remove legal protections for DeFi and open-source developers. He warns the bill replicates the SEC’s aggressive regulatory stance and could expose software creators to unreasonable liability. Hoskinson also addressed the XRP community, clarifying that his criticism targets Ripple’s lobbying—not the token itself—and contrasted Ripple’s “mammoth premine” with Cardano’s more distributed token distribution.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson used a lengthy weekly livestream to level one of his sharpest recent attacks at Ripple, arguing that the company is backing legislation that could entrench incumbents, weaken DeFi protections, and make it harder for new crypto projects to compete.

The core of Hoskinson’s complaint was not aimed at XRP holders, but at what he described as Ripple’s policy posture in Washington and the behavior of CEO Brad Garlinghouse. In Hoskinson’s telling, Ripple is pushing for rules that would classify new tokens as securities by default while benefiting from carve-outs that would leave larger, established players in a stronger position.

Hoskinson Takes Aim At Ripple Over Competition Fight

Hoskinson said Garlinghouse was “trying to pass a bill that makes everything by default a security until proven otherwise,” calling that framework a non-starter for the broader market. He argued that such an approach would effectively recreate the kind of regulatory pressure that former SEC Chair Gary Gensler brought to the sector, only this time through legislation supported by industry actors rather than enforcement alone.

“He’s trying to pass a bill that makes everything by default a security until proven otherwise, which was the treatment Gary Gensler inflicted on his own ecosystem,” Hoskinson said. “It’s a non-starter, because he knows that he’s going to get an exemption and it reduces competition. So, [expletive] the whole industry. It’s bad behavior.”

That argument sat at the center of a wider rant about market structure, lobbying, and what Hoskinson sees as crypto’s growing willingness to trade open competition for regulatory protection. He said he had already laid out “four different attack vectors” the SEC could use if such a bill were enacted, and warned that the damage would not stop with token issuers.

According to Hoskinson, the proposal would also leave open-source developers exposed by stripping out protections for DeFi builders. “The bill also removed all developer protections for DeFi developers,” he said. “Who takes care of the Tornado Cash people and these other people writing open-source software? We can’t live in a space where you have transitive unlimited liability.”

He extended that point with one of the livestream’s longer analogies, arguing that holding software developers liable for downstream use of their code would amount to a category error. “You write code and people you’ve never met use that code in places you’ve never been to and you’re held absolutely liable for that,” Hoskinson said. “That’s equivalent to you writing a book, someone reads the book and murders somebody based on a character in your book and then you get charged with murder. It’s basically the same thing.”

Hoskinson also took aim at what he described as the XRP community’s reflexive defense of Ripple whenever he criticizes the company. He said there is “no path for people to listen to the content” of his argument because any criticism of Garlinghouse is treated as an attack on XRP itself. He pushed back on that framing by noting that he publicly supported Ripple when the SEC sued the company years ago, but said that did not obligate him to back its current lobbying goals.

“Guys, I did support you when you got sued by the Securities Exchange Commission,” he said. “There’s videos of me. You can pull them up from years ago where I said it was the wrong decision.”

From there, Hoskinson shifted into one of crypto’s oldest fault lines: token distribution. He argued that Ripple had no need for outside help in its legal fight because the organization “gave themselves a mammoth premine,” saying the company already had the resources to defend itself and pursue acquisitions. He contrasted that with Cardano, saying, “I didn’t give myself 70% of the ADA supply.”

At press time, XRP traded at $1.35.

XRP falls below the 200-week EMA again, 1-week chart | Source: XRPUSDT on TradingView.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is Charles Hoskinson's main criticism against Ripple in this article?

ACharles Hoskinson criticizes Ripple for backing legislation that would classify new tokens as securities by default, which he believes would entrench incumbents, weaken DeFi protections, reduce competition, and benefit established players like Ripple through exemptions.

QAccording to Hoskinson, what negative consequences would the proposed bill have for DeFi developers?

AHoskinson states the bill would remove developer protections for DeFi builders, exposing open-source developers to 'transitive unlimited liability' where they could be held liable for how others use their code, similar to holding an author responsible if someone committed murder after reading their book.

QHow does Hoskinson contrast Cardano's token distribution with Ripple's?

AHoskinson contrasts the two by stating that Ripple 'gave themselves a mammoth premine' of XRP, giving them ample resources, while emphasizing 'I didn't give myself 70% of the ADA supply' for Cardano.

QWhat does Hoskinson say about the XRP community's response to his criticism of Ripple?

AHoskinson says the XRP community has a reflexive defense mechanism where any criticism of Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse is treated as an attack on XRP itself, making it difficult for people to actually listen to the content of his arguments.

QWhat historical support does Hoskinson mention he provided to Ripple, and how does it relate to his current stance?

AHoskinson mentions he publicly supported Ripple years ago when the SEC sued the company, calling it 'the wrong decision,' but clarifies that this past support does not obligate him to back Ripple's current lobbying efforts for what he considers anti-competitive legislation.

Пов'язані матеріали

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

NEAR Returns to AI Origins: From Payroll Struggles to Blockchain, Now Focusing on AI Agents and Privacy NEAR Protocol's journey began not with grand blockchain ambitions, but from a practical hurdle: its AI startup founders, including Transformer paper co-author Illia Polosukhin, couldn't efficiently pay international developers in 2017. This led them to pivot and build a high-performance, scalable blockchain. After years navigating various crypto narratives like sharding and cross-chain interoperability, NEAR is now leveraging its AI roots to re-enter the AI arena. A key driver is its "NEAR Intents" layer, which abstracts complex cross-chain transactions. Users simply state their goal (e.g., swap BTC for ETH), and a solver network finds the optimal route. This system has processed over $20B in cross-chain volume, generating significant fee revenue. A major growth area is private transactions via "Confidential Intents/Swaps," which hide trade details until settlement to protect against MEV and front-running. Remarkably, private swaps recently accounted for over 40% of NEAR's transaction volume, highlighting strong demand but also potential regulatory scrutiny. With its AI-founder pedigree, NEAR is positioning itself at the intersection of blockchain, AI agents, and privacy, aiming to become infrastructure for the emerging agent economy while navigating the challenges of its rapid adoption.

marsbit49 хв тому

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

marsbit49 хв тому

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

In recent discussions, Vitalik Buterin has frequently emphasized the concept of "CROPS," a framework defining core values for Ethereum's development. CROPS stands for Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. Initially outlined in the Ethereum Foundation's "EF Mandate," it represents a commitment to user sovereignty, ensuring that the network resists external control, remains open, protects privacy, and prioritizes security. The relevance of CROPS extends beyond Ethereum's foundational principles, becoming crucial in the context of AI integration. As AI agents begin handling wallet operations and automated transactions, the risk increases that users may cede control over their digital assets, privacy, and intentions to centralized AI service providers. A "CROPS AI" would therefore emphasize local execution where possible, privacy-preserving remote model calls (e.g., using zero-knowledge proofs), and transparent, verifiable processes to maintain user agency. Vitalik highlights a significant convergence between "CROPS Ethereum access layer" and "CROPS AI." Both address the same fundamental challenge: how users can access powerful services—be it blockchain data via RPCs or AI models—without exposing sensitive information or relinquishing ultimate control. This intersection points toward a future digital entry point that is more private, secure, and user-controlled. Ultimately, CROPS is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical guidepost. It steers development—from protocol resilience and wallet design to AI agent safety—towards a future where users retain self-sovereignty even as digital systems grow more complex and powerful. In an era of accelerating AI adoption, these "slow variables" of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security may define Ethereum's enduring value.

marsbit59 хв тому

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

marsbit59 хв тому

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit2 год тому

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit2 год тому

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit2 год тому

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片