For a brief moment, the U.S. crypto industry appeared close to something it had chased for years: clear, bipartisan rules.
Lawmakers from both parties were engaged, momentum was building, and major market-structure legislation looked viable. That window is now gone.
Key takeaways
Crypto regulation in the U.S. stalled after becoming tied to partisan politics
Trump’s entry into crypto shifted the debate from policy to political loyalty
Industry leaders stayed silent out of fear of losing access in Washington
According to Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson, the breakdown did not come from technical disagreements or consumer-protection concerns, but from politics swallowing the issue whole. In his view, crypto stopped being treated as financial infrastructure and started being viewed as a political symbol.
Once that happened, progress collapsed.
When regulation became a loyalty test
Hoskinson argues that the turning point came when President Donald Trump entered the crypto conversation not as a policymaker, but as a market participant. The launch of a Trump-linked token just days before returning to the White House fundamentally changed how crypto was perceived in Washington.
What had been a neutral policy debate was suddenly reframed as a partisan identifier. Supporting crypto legislation was no longer interpreted as supporting innovation or competitiveness, but as signaling alignment with Trump himself.
That shift, Hoskinson says, made bipartisan cooperation nearly impossible. Democratic lawmakers who had previously engaged constructively were now forced to weigh policy decisions against political optics, especially heading into an election cycle.
A bill that once looked inevitable stalled almost instantly.
Why silence spread across the industry
Despite the fallout, few crypto executives spoke publicly. Hoskinson says that was not accidental.
Behind the scenes, industry figures were warned that criticism could cost them access — access to regulators, lawmakers, and working groups shaping future rules. In Washington, influence is currency, and many chose to protect it rather than challenge the direction things were heading.
This created a feedback loop. As fewer leaders spoke up, political narratives hardened, and crypto became easier to frame as a partisan tool rather than a neutral technology sector.
Hoskinson describes the topic as untouchable — not because it lacks importance, but because addressing it openly carries risk.
The sequencing problem
Beyond politics, Hoskinson raises a more structural concern: timing.
He argues that when political leaders launch crypto ventures before regulatory frameworks exist, it reverses the order needed for credibility. Rules, in his view, must come first. Markets come second.
Failing to follow that sequence doesn’t just undermine trust; it creates exposure. If leadership changes, those blurred lines between governance and personal ventures can quickly become targets for investigation, regardless of intent.
That risk, Hoskinson warns, extends beyond individuals to the industry as a whole.
A missed opportunity with real consequences
Hoskinson does not frame the situation as irreparable, but he is blunt about the damage done. Crypto lost a rare chance to lock in regulatory clarity without becoming a cultural or political wedge issue.
Instead of debating custody standards, disclosures, or market integrity, lawmakers are now navigating symbolism, branding, and election math.
For an industry that depends on legal certainty to scale, that shift is costly. Crypto is still innovating. Builders are still building. But in Washington, the conversation has changed — and not in crypto’s favor.
According to Hoskinson, the lesson is uncomfortable but clear: when technology becomes inseparable from political identity, policy stops moving forward.
And in crypto’s case, that pause may last longer than anyone expected.
