A sharp public rift has opened at the top of the crypto industry, revealing how divided major leaders have become over whether Washington is still capable of delivering meaningful digital-asset regulation.
Rather than uniting the sector, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act has become a fault line – exposing disagreements not just about policy details, but about strategy, timing, and political reality.
Key Takeaways
The CLARITY Act has split major crypto leaders on strategy and timing.
Charles Hoskinson doubts the bill can pass in today’s political climate.
Brad Garlinghouse argues imperfect regulation is better than none.
From cooperation to confrontation
Charles Hoskinson, CEO of Input Output Global, has emerged as one of the bill’s most vocal skeptics. His criticism goes beyond the text of the legislation and instead targets the political machinery behind it. In his view, what was once a credible bipartisan effort has been derailed by political theater and poor stewardship.
Hoskinson argues that the environment in Washington has shifted dramatically, turning crypto regulation into a partisan battleground. He has pointed to recent White House-aligned crypto activity, including the launch of a Trump-linked meme coin, as a catalyst that poisoned negotiations and fractured support. To Hoskinson, that moment marked the beginning of the end for any serious chance of passage.
His frustration has also landed squarely on David Sacks, the administration’s crypto lead. Hoskinson has suggested that failure to shepherd the bill through Congress should carry consequences, warning that the opportunity to act is rapidly disappearing. In his assessment, the current quarter may already be too late.
A pragmatic counterweight
Standing in stark contrast is Brad Garlinghouse, who has publicly backed the CLARITY Act despite acknowledging its imperfections. Garlinghouse has framed his support around urgency rather than idealism, arguing that the industry has spent years waiting for regulatory clarity and cannot afford further delays.
Rather than chasing a perfect framework, Garlinghouse believes that establishing any statutory foundation is a necessary step forward. His stance reflects a willingness to compromise in exchange for legal certainty, even if the end result falls short of what some in the industry would prefer.
This approach has earned him both praise and criticism, positioning him as an optimist in a debate increasingly dominated by skepticism. It also places him at odds not only with Hoskinson, but with other industry leaders such as Brian Armstrong, whose company stepped back from supporting the bill over concerns it could damage decentralized finance.
A narrowing window for consensus
The dispute underscores a deeper question facing crypto in the US: whether incremental regulation is better than continued uncertainty, or whether rushed legislation risks locking in harmful rules. Hoskinson believes the political moment has already passed, while Garlinghouse sees delay as the greater threat.
What’s clear is that crypto’s leadership is no longer speaking with one voice. As internal divisions become more visible and political pressure intensifies, the CLARITY Act has evolved from a regulatory proposal into a test of the industry’s ability to navigate Washington at all.
Whether compromise or caution prevails, the debate itself signals a turning point – one where crypto’s biggest challenge may no longer be regulators, but its own fractured strategy for dealing with them.
