- Charles Hoskinson says the CLARITY Act failed because it lacked fragmentation.
- Hoskinson criticized US legislators for failing to consult and negotiate extensively.
- Lawmakers did not resolve individual regulatory questions and build bipartisan agreement.
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has attributed the CLARITY Act’s failure to Washington’s attempt to regulate the entire digital asset ecosystem at once, rather than taking a modular, category-specific approach. In his latest podcast, Hoskinson calls this strategy “omnibus,” saying it overloaded agencies like the CFTC and undermined decentralized finance, making the bill’s failure preferable to flawed legislation.
The renowned tech leader boasted that he predicted this failure over a year ago and emphasized his familiarity with the US legislative sector and his work with lawmakers. Hoskinson presented a few legislative activities he participated in as evidence of his proficiency in lawmaking, while highlighting the reasons behind the CLARITY Act’s failure.
Lack of Coalition and Widespread Consultation
Beyond his central argument of lawmakers trying to address too many cryptocurrency issues through a single, wide-ranging bill, Hoskinson said the bill’s sponsors failed to consult and negotiate extensively. He noted that they did not build a coalition before the bill reached its final stage.
Hoskinson also criticized the CLARITY Act sponsors for not consulting enough with jurisdictions that have already established cryptocurrency regulatory frameworks, citing examples with Europe, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai, among others. He believes US lawmakers should have studied these regions before execution.
From Hoskinson’s perspective, studying existing frameworks, such as Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) digital assets framework, could have helped lawmakers identify regulatory models that had been tested elsewhere.
Lawmakers Should Have Fragmented the CLARITY Act
The Cardano executive emphasized that US lawmakers should have addressed cryptocurrency regulation in fragments, separating the components rather than attempting to establish a comprehensive framework in one step. He divided the areas into stablecoins, digital securities, commodities, custody, taxation, and decentralized finance (DeFi).
In Hoskinson’s opinion, separating the components could make it easier for lawmakers to resolve individual regulatory questions and build bipartisan agreement around each area. He also argued that the legislation needed clearer definitions for digital securities and a more modern approach to existing securities laws.
Related: SEC’s Atkins Vows to Push Crypto Rules After CLARITY Act Senate Setback
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
