Breaking: Hoskinson Calls Comments on SEC’s Treatment of BTC, ETH Free Speech

• Cardano’s founder said the Bitcoin community attacked him following his statements on the SEC’s inconsistency. 
• Bitcoin and Ethereum are being treated preferentially by the regulator as a matter of policy and law, he argued.
• The founder clarified that his statements are not an attack on Bitcoin or its ecosystem. 

Cardano’s founder, Charles Hoskinson, revealed that he came under attack from the Bitcoin community following his statements on the inconsistent application of laws and policies by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Hoskinson made these statements in a recent live stream on free speech, where he noted that his criticisms of the Wall Street regulator won him enemies. While still maintaining his stand, the founder opined that the reactions from the Bitcoin community were a consequence of the facts he stated. 

Indeed, Hoskinson came under heated criticism from the Bitcoin community following his outcry against the SEC over the treatment of the digital asset. In addition, the founder slammed Bitcoin maximalists for consistently calling non-Bitcoin crypto projects scams and security. 

While reiterating earlier statements, Hoskinson argued that regulators’ preferential treatment of Bitcoin and Ethereum is “categorically wrong as a matter of law and policy.” Furthermore, he asserted the unfairness of the two digital assets not being subjected to the same treatment as other networks in the crypto ecosystem. 

Since he made the statements, Hoskinson said, 

There are many in the Bitcoin space who perceived this as an attack on Bitcoin and have gone out of their way to attack and diminish me. Attack my credentials, my honesty, my business, and Cardano as an ecosystem.

However, Hoskinson clarified that his statements about the world’s largest digital asset wasn’t an attack. Instead, he stated that they were merely to point out inconsistencies in the application of laws and policies by the SEC. “It is fair to point out when a regulator has an inconsistent application of the law in contrast to historical reality,” he remarked.