Crypto Wanted Rules. Now It’s Fighting Over Them.
As Washington moves toward crypto legislation, industry leaders clash over whether regulatory clarity comes at the cost of decentralization.
The debate over the United States’ crypto regulatory future is intensifying — not just in Congress, but within the industry itself. On one side are traditional players and advocates for regulatory clarity; on the other are critics who warn that the proposed framework could dent innovation and decentralization. These tensions have come to a head amid clashes between major industry figures and evolving policy dynamics that could shape crypto regulation throughout 2026.
Hoskinson Takes Aim at Ripple’s Support for the CLARITY Act
Charles Hoskinson, founder of Cardano, has publicly criticized Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse for backing the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, a high-profile piece of draft legislation intended to clarify digital asset regulation in the U.S. In a widely viewed January broadcast on X, Hoskinson challenged the notion that embracing the bill — even in its imperfect form — is the right path for the industry.
Hoskinson’s core objection centers on the idea that the bill, which has attracted amendments and deep industry involvement, may actually expand the authority of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in ways that could disadvantage decentralized projects and entrench centralized regulatory control. He questioned whether supporting a framework that potentially forces new blockchain initiatives into a securities-by-default regime is an improvement over the current landscape.
Critically, Hoskinson took aim directly at Garlinghouse’s position that “clarity beats chaos,” a phrase Garlinghouse has used to promote the bill as a long-overdue and constructive step for the industry. Hoskinson argued that this approach risks conceding too much power to institutions that have historically taken adversarial stances toward crypto companies, warning that poorly calibrated regulation could normalize surveillance mechanisms, pervasive KYC (know-your-customer) requirements, and reversible transactions — developments he sees as antithetical to core decentralization principles.
Ripple’s Regulatory Optimism vs. Skepticism
Ripple’s executive leadership has positioned the CLARITY Act as a way to move beyond years of legal ambiguity. Having endured protracted litigation with the SEC — which concluded in 2025 — Ripple’s support for the bill stems from a belief that clear statutory rules are better for long-term industry growth than the status quo of enforcement-driven guidance. Advocates argue that legal certainty fosters investment, consumer protection, and institutional participation.
This philosophical divide — clarity vs. purism, certainty vs. decentralization — highlights a broader tension within the industry about how regulation should evolve. Garlinghouse’s stance reflects a pragmatic acceptance that legislative processes are often imperfect, while Hoskinson’s critique centers on a purist view that regulation should not compromise the original ethos of decentralization.
The CLARITY Act’s Current Status and 2026 Outlook
While the CLARITY Act has enjoyed bipartisan momentum — having passed the House of Representatives and been introduced in the Senate — its path remains uncertain. The Senate Banking Committee’s markup was postponed after Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong withdrew his support, citing concerns about specific provisions that could ban certain tokenized assets, restrict decentralized finance (DeFi), and expand regulatory reach in ways that harm innovation.
Industry analysts warn that without clear legislative consensus, regulatory ambiguity could persist throughout 2026, slowing institutional adoption and deepening divisions among market participants. As policymakers and executives continue to negotiate language and jurisdictional oversight between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the industry’s ability to present unified guidance to U.S. lawmakers could be a decisive factor in whether the bill advances or stalls.
What This Means for Crypto in 2026
The Hoskinson-Garlinghouse clash is emblematic of a larger debate over the soul and direction of crypto regulation in the United States. With the CLARITY Act at the center, 2026 could become a defining year in how digital assets are governed, balancing industry demands for certainty with concerns about innovation, decentralization, and regulatory overreach.
For investors and builders alike, the unfolding policy drama will influence everything from institutional inflows to network governance models, and the final contours of U.S. crypto regulation may look very different from anything proposed today.
