Hoskinson rebukes Ripple CEO over CLARITY Act as crypto policy rift widens

Garlinghouse, for his part, has urged Congress to advance the legislation even if imperfect, saying statutory guardrails are preferable to the current vacuum.

Hoskinson’s remarks, made in a series of recent posts and interviews, contend that the window for passage is narrowing as election-year messaging crowds out compromise. He said Sacks’ role in crypto policy – coupled with the memecoin episode – “destroyed” cross-aisle momentum and that failure to deliver a vote should prompt Sacks to step aside. The comments frame a clear rift among industry leaders on whether to push a flawed package now or pause for a cleaner consensus text later.

Brad has taken the opposite tack, praising the CLARITY Act’s broad contours and urging lawmakers to codify a path forward. In his recent public statements, he argued that waiting for a “perfect” framework risks leaving developers and companies in limbo, while a reasonable baseline would at least define agency remits and compliance obligations.

At issue is a proposal widely referred to as the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (often shortened to the CLARITY Act), which seeks to delineate jurisdictional boundaries for the SEC and CFTC, set disclosure expectations for token projects, and formalize rules for platforms that custody or match orders in crypto assets. Policy briefs describe the measure as an attempt to resolve years of overlapping enforcement and ad-hoc guidance that have left market participants without predictable standards.

Charles also tied his skepticism to the broader political environment. He argued that associating federal crypto policy with campaign-era branding – including the World Liberty Financial initiatives that drew scrutiny after their memecoin tie-ins – made it harder to hold a neutral, process-driven debate in committees. Separate reporting shows the venture’s bid for a U.S. trust-bank charter and related branding ignited conflict-of-interest questions in Washington, further complicating legislative choreography.

The standoff underscores a strategic divide inside the industry: some executives prioritize immediate, if imperfect, statutory clarity to reduce litigation risk, while others warn that codifying half-baked frameworks could harden bad definitions for years. For now, Hoskinson says the odds of near-term passage look dim; Garlinghouse continues to press Congress for a vote. What both agree on is the cost of ambiguity for U.S. builders and exchanges – a vacuum that has pushed activity to friendlier regimes and left interpretations to the courts.