Cardano founder clash over CLARITY Act and crypto policy

Growing tensions in the US policy debate over crypto regulation came into focus as the Cardano founder criticized Ripple’s leadership and the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson takes aim at Brad Garlinghouse

Input Output Global CEO Charles Hoskinson has sharply criticized Ripple chief executive Brad Garlinghouse over his backing of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, also known as the CLARITY Act. However, Hoskinson framed his criticism as disagreement over strategy rather than motives.

Hoskinson acknowledged that Garlinghouse is acting from what he sees as genuine conviction. “He’s being principled. That’s genuine passion and concern. He got into the space as a cypherpunk from the early days. He’s trying to support what this technology was meant to be about and for,” he said, stressing Garlinghouse’s early crypto roots.

Some members of the XRP community have attacked Hoskinson for supposedly “crashing out,” arguing he is undermining regulatory progress. However, others within that same community have backed his skeptical stance, reflecting how divided industry opinion has become on the bill’s merits.

Fears the bill will not survive the current political climate

Despite Garlinghouse’s endorsement, the Cardano founder remains deeply doubtful that the CLARITY Act can pass in the current Washington environment. Moreover, Hoskinson has repeatedly warned that the “window” for securing bipartisan agreement on digital asset rules is closing fast.

He is not confident that the legislation will advance this quarter, underscoring what he sees as both political missteps and deteriorating support. That said, he has not questioned the need for clearer US rules, only the way this particular bill has been handled.

Hoskinson has focused his ire on David Sacks, whom he labels the Trump administration’s “Crypto Czar”. According to Hoskinson, Sacks mishandled the political rollout of the bill and bears responsibility if it ultimately fails to reach the finish line in Congress.

In Hoskinson’s view, the bill enjoyed a realistic path forward until the launch of a Trump-branded meme coin allegedly linked to the White House. However, he argues that this meme token instantly turned crypto regulation into a partisan issue, eroding the bipartisan coalition that negotiators needed.

Hoskinson has gone as far as to say that if the David Sacks crypto czar figure cannot steer the legislation to passage after this controversy, he should resign from his crypto policy role. Moreover, Hoskinson portrays this failure as emblematic of broader political mismanagement around digital assets.

Garlinghouse positions himself as a regulatory optimist

While Hoskinson doubts the bill will pass, Garlinghouse has emerged as one of its most vocal champions among large industry leaders. The Brad Garlinghouse support bill stance places him at odds with more skeptical executives who either oppose the proposal or question its political viability.

Garlinghouse has argued that an imperfect framework is preferable to the current vacuum in US rules. Moreover, he has cast himself as the bill’s “optimist” in contrast to Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, who opposed the measure, and Hoskinson, who doubts it can make it through.

For Garlinghouse, the industry imperfect bill debate misses a central point: waiting for a flawless statute means accepting ongoing regulatory uncertainty. He maintains that establishing any statutory framework, even one that may require future amendments, would still mark a meaningful victory for the sector.

A divided industry watches Washington

The exchange between Hoskinson and Garlinghouse underscores how crypto policy has become more polarized as lawmakers weigh the digital asset clarity act. However, both sides agree that the stakes for US market structure, investor protection and innovation are significant.

At the same time, Hoskinson’s criticism that a White House meme coin has complicated negotiations highlights how symbolic political moves can reshape legislative math. That said, whether the CLARITY Act can recover bipartisan support remains uncertain as the quarter progresses.

In summary, Hoskinson’s public challenge, Sacks’s contested role and Garlinghouse’s advocacy all reveal an industry struggling to influence policy while navigating mounting partisan risks in Washington.