hodler

20 Jan 2026, 17:31

Trump Family Crypto Haul Hits $1.4B as DJT Trades as $14.67

The Trump family added about $1.4 billion in crypto-linked wealth since Jan. 20, 2025 , while Trump Media & Technology Group (DJT) is trading at $14.67 (+2.81%) , after a multi-month slide that Bloomberg flagged as the main drag on the family’s balance sheet. JUST IN: Bitcoin and crypto projects now account for $1.4 BILLION of the Trump family’s $6.8B net worth (20%) — Bloomberg pic.twitter.com/X1O7GJqqu3 — Bitcoin Archive (@BitcoinArchive) January 20, 2026 The WLFI Economic Engine Bloomberg’s Tuesday tally hinges on World Liberty Financial (WLFI) economics that route cash flows to a Trump-affiliated vehicle. World Liberty’s own terms state that DT Marks DeFi, LLC and affiliates, including Donald J. Trump, received 22,500,000,000 WLFI tokens and collect 75% of net protocol revenues (and separately 75% of WLFI token sale proceeds after deductions under a service agreement). The mark-to-market swing sits in the locked paper. The report cited by The Block says the family still holds founder tokens worth roughly $3.8 billion that Bloomberg excluded from net-worth math because the tokens remain locked . A second pillar now links Trump-branded real estate to token rails. The Trump Organization and Dar Global announced on Nov. 17, 2025 , that the Trump International Hotel Maldives will tokenize the development phase, with Eric Trump calling it a “new benchmark” for tokenized real estate investment and Dar Global CEO Ziad El Chaar calling it a “global first.” The announcement targeted an end-of-2028 opening and cited ~80 villas in the initial plan. On the equity leg, Trump Media’s latest filed quarterly disclosure showed revenue sensitivity and rising costs tied to its streaming buildout. In its Form 10-Q filed Nov. 7, 2025 , DJT reported $972,900 revenue for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2025 , and cited higher content license and data center lease costs tied to Truth+. What Traders Are Watching For institutional trading desks, the current market environment represents a complex arbitrage between WLFI’s liquidity profile and broader policy-driven headline risk . The trade has evolved into a “political-beta” complex where the value of the 22.5 billion token grant and the 75% revenue-sharing agreement are inextricably linked to the administration’s regulatory posture. Analysts are particularly focused on the March 2026 unlock schedule , viewing it as a potential liquidity cliff that could re-price the entire ecosystem. Because the protocol’s governance is highly concentrated—with a small number of affiliated wallets controlling the majority of the supply—institutions treat WLFI less as a decentralized utility and more as a centralized proxy for the family’s digital brand. Consequently, DJT equity often acts as the listed vehicle for this sentiment, frequently “gapping” on news of token distributions, regulatory filings, or shifts in the protocol’s USD1 stablecoin supply . Any change in the enforcement environment or the transferability of these locked assets creates a dual-impact risk, affecting both the token float and the listed equity in a single correlated move. The post Trump Family Crypto Haul Hits $1.4B as DJT Trades as $14.67 appeared first on Cryptonews .

20 Jan 2026, 09:57

Trove Shocks Investors: $9.4M ICO Funds Retained, Token Crashes 95% After Solana Pivot

Trove Markets has come under intense scrutiny after confirming it will retain roughly $9.4 million from a token sale that was originally marketed around a planned integration with Hyperliquid, despite pivoting its perps DEX to Solana just days before its token launch. This led its newly launched TROVE token to collapse by more than 95% minutes after trading began. TROVE launched with an expected market capitalization of about $20 million, but within ten minutes of going live, the token plunged to around $0.0008, cutting its valuation to under $2 million, as shown by DEXScreener data. Source: DEXScreener At the time of writing, TROVE is trading near $0.000703, with a market cap of roughly $703,000. The sudden drop followed growing frustration from contributors who said the project had changed direction too late in the fundraising process. Liquidity Exit Triggers Trove’s Shift From Hyperliquid to Solana Trove had raised more than $11.5 million through a public token sale tied to building a perpetual decentralized exchange using Hyperliquid’s infrastructure. Just days before the token generation event, however, the team announced it would pivot to Solana instead. That shift immediately raised questions about whether funds collected for the Hyperliquid build should be returned. Instead, Trove said it would retain $9,397,403 to continue development on Solana, describing the move as the only viable way to keep the product alive. One of Trove’s builders, known as Unwise, attributed the abrupt pivot to the withdrawal of a key liquidity partner, who had previously supported the Hyperliquid path with a position of roughly 500,000 HYPE tokens. We’re pivoting Trove to Solana. After recent sentiment around Trove, the liquidity partner that had been supporting our Hyperliquid path chose to unwind their 500k $HYPE position. That was their decision and we fully respect it. This changes our constraints: we’re no longer… — unwise (@unwisecap) January 18, 2026 With that support gone, the team said it no longer made sense to continue building on Hyperliquid rails and opted to rebuild the perps exchange on Solana from scratch. Trove said the decision fundamentally changed its constraints and forced a reset rather than pushing forward with what it described as an uncertain setup. Trove acknowledged on X that its handling of the ICO and subsequent decisions caused confusion, frustration, and a breakdown of trust. https://t.co/sc8b59sjYE — TROVE (@TroveMarkets) January 19, 2026 Trove said it had already refunded about $2.44 million as part of cleaning up participation and protecting distribution integrity, with an additional $100,000 slated to be refunded automatically to ICO participants. The remaining funds, it said, have been spent or earmarked for developer salaries, frontend and backend infrastructure, a chief technology officer, advisory services, marketing, and operating costs. Trove Under Pressure as Community Questions Fundraising Conduct Despite those explanations, critics have continued to question the handling of the raise. On X, some users accused the project of breaking fundraising expectations, arguing that money raised to build on Hyperliquid should not be repurposed after a last-minute pivot. refund the people now!!! you raised to money to build on hyperliquid! Give back the money and raise on solana if you think that's what your community really wants — HYPEconomist (@HYPEconomist) January 18, 2026 Others went further, calling for refunds, threatening legal action, or alleging the situation could result in lawsuits. Additional on-chain analysis added to the controversy with data shared by Bubblemap showed that a single entity appeared to control about 12% of the TROVE supply, spread across dozens of fresh wallets funded through the same exchange and clustered in tight time windows. 2/ $TROVE launched earlier today and quickly dropped -90% • The presale was at $20M FDV • It now trades around $2M FDV https://t.co/HHABuaSnz7 pic.twitter.com/2FhDwew2IX — Bubblemaps (@bubblemaps) January 19, 2026 Bubblemap said it had found no evidence directly linking those wallets to the Trove team but noted that the pattern raised open questions about presale behavior. The turmoil follows an already chaotic ICO process earlier in January . Trove initially announced the sale had crossed $11.5 million, far above its $2.5 million target, and promised pro-rata refunds. It then briefly announced a five-day extension, only to reverse that decision hours later, citing a mistake. The post Trove Shocks Investors: $9.4M ICO Funds Retained, Token Crashes 95% After Solana Pivot appeared first on Cryptonews .

20 Jan 2026, 05:30

Injective Community Approves Supply Squeeze Tokenomics Shift

Community reaction was mainly positive, as the move was framed as a structural reset rather than a short-term price driver. In contrast, Trove Markets faced intense backlash after abruptly pivoting from a Hyperliquid-based launch to Solana while retaining most of its $11.5 million raise. This quickly triggered refund demands, accusations of poor execution, and a steep 95% post-launch collapse in its TROVE token. Injective Community Backs INJ Supply Cuts Injective approved a major overhaul of its tokenomics after the community overwhelmingly passed a new governance proposal that is aimed at tightening supply and reinforcing long-term deflationary dynamics. The vote was finalized on Monday, and passed with 99.89% support based on staked voting power. Overall, there was strong alignment among validators and token holders despite a prolonged period of market weakness for the network’s native token, INJ. The proposal , known as the “Supply Squeeze” initiative (IIP-617), reduces ongoing token issuance while preserving Injective’s existing buyback-and-burn mechanism. Under this system, protocol-generated revenue is used to repurchase INJ from the open market and permanently remove it from circulation. Injective said roughly 6.85 million INJ tokens have already been burned to date, and the new framework is designed to accelerate this process by pairing lower issuance with recurring buybacks. According to the team, the changes are now live and are intended to make INJ one of the most deflationary crypto assets over time. The governance decision comes against the backdrop of a steep decline in INJ’s market performance due to a broader sell-off across the altcoin market. Over the past year, INJ has dropped by close to 80% and is still more than 90% below its all-time high that was set in March of 2024. On Monday, the token fell by another 8%, based on data from CoinCodex. INJ price action over the past year (Source: CoinCodex) Community response on X was mostly constructive, with many people describing the move as a structural, long-term adjustment rather than a catalyst for an immediate price rebound. On-chain data also reflects the cooling activity across Injective’s decentralized finance ecosystem. According to DefiLlama , Injective currently has about $18.67 million in total value locked. This is down sharply from highs above $60 million recorded in 2024. Even so, the network continued to draw institutional attention in 2025. In July, both Cboe and Canary Capital filed regulatory applications for a staked Injective exchange-traded fund ( ETF ), proposing products that would hold and stake INJ to generate yield through approved staking platforms. The filings suggest that despite near-term challenges, Injective is still part of longer-term conversations around regulated crypto investment products. Trove Faces Backlash After Solana Pivot While the Injective community is certain about the project’s next move, Trove Markets is facing backlash from its community after announcing it would keep most of the funds raised for a Hyperliquid-based launch and instead pivot development to the Solana blockchain . The decision reignited criticism on X, particularly from investors who say they backed the project specifically for its planned integration with Hyperliquid. Trove raised more than $11.5 million through a token sale tied to its proposed build on Hyperliquid. However, just days before its token generation event, the team revealed it would abandon that plan and focus on building a perpetuals decentralized exchange on Solana instead. One of Trove’s builders, who goes by the name “Unwise,” later attributed the shift to a liquidity partner withdrawing 500,000 HYPE tokens that were required for the Hyperliquid integration. The explanation did little to calm investor anger, with dozens of participants publicly calling for refunds. In a follow-up statement on Monday, Trove said it would keep $9,397,403 from the total raise to continue development on Solana, and described the pivot as “the only path that keeps Trove alive as a real product.” The team acknowledged that not all costs incurred could be reversed but said it intended to keep building and deliver a collectibles-focused perpetuals DEX. Trove added that funds were spent, or earmarked, for frontend and backend development, a chief technology officer, advisory support, marketing, and operational expenses. The team also said that more than $2.44 million had already been refunded to investors as part of what it called a cleanup process to protect distribution integrity, with an additional $100,000 set to be returned to participants from the initial coin offering. Even so, critics still questioned Trove’s execution. One X user even accused the project of incompetence and called it “the biggest scam in crypto ATM.” Tensions escalated even more after Trove’s TROVE token collapsed shortly after launch. Within ten minutes of the TGE, the token plunged more than 95% to roughly $0.0008, wiping out most of its value and dragging its market capitalization from about $20 million to below $1 million. Analysis from blockchain forensics firm Bubblemaps showed that a single entity received 12% of the token supply through 80 newly created wallets funded via the non-custodial exchange ChangeHero, though Bubblemaps said it found no evidence directly linking those wallets to the Trove team. Despite the controversy, Trove insisted it has no plans to shut down.

20 Jan 2026, 02:10

Trove Investor Backlash Erupts After Shocking Pivot from Hyperliquid to Solana

BitcoinWorld Trove Investor Backlash Erupts After Shocking Pivot from Hyperliquid to Solana In a move that has sent shockwaves through the decentralized finance (DeFi) community, the Trove token project now faces significant investor backlash following its decision to abandon its original Hyperliquid-based chain in favor of building on Solana. This strategic pivot, announced just ahead of the project’s token generation event (TGE), involves redirecting $9.4 million of a total $11.5 million raise—funds initially secured under the premise of Hyperliquid integration. The controversy, first reported by Cointelegraph, highlights the complex tensions between developer autonomy, investor expectations, and the rapidly evolving blockchain landscape. Consequently, the team has initiated a refund process, returning $2.44 million to date with plans for more, as it argues the Solana move is critical for the project’s survival. Trove Investor Backlash: Anatomy of a Strategic Pivot The core of the Trove investor backlash stems from a fundamental shift in technological commitment. Initially, Trove conducted a token sale that successfully raised $11.5 million. Investors participated based on a clear proposition: the development of a perpetual decentralized exchange (DEX) on the Hyperliquid ecosystem. Hyperliquid is an emerging Layer 1 blockchain designed specifically for high-performance perpetual futures trading. However, in a sudden announcement, the Trove team declared a change in development direction. They revealed plans to allocate the majority of the raised capital—$9.4 million—to build its perpetual DEX on the Solana network instead. The team framed this not as a mere preference but as “the only path for the project’s survival,” citing Solana’s superior liquidity, developer ecosystem, and proven throughput for DeFi applications. This decision triggered immediate protests from a segment of the project’s backers. Many investors felt the pivot violated the implicit contract of the fundraise, which was explicitly tied to Hyperliquid’s architecture and growth potential. The backlash manifested in public forums and direct demands for refunds. In response, Trove has undertaken a partial refund initiative. To date, the project has refunded $2.44 million to dissenting investors and has committed to issuing an additional $100,000. This refund process, while addressing some concerns, also underscores the financial and reputational costs of such a late-stage strategic change. Hyperliquid vs. Solana: The Ecosystem Dilemma To understand the depth of the Trove investor backlash, one must examine the technical and philosophical differences between Hyperliquid and Solana. This pivot represents more than a simple platform switch; it signifies a bet on two distinct visions for decentralized trading. Hyperliquid : This is a specialized, application-specific blockchain. Its entire design is optimized for a single function: hosting a decentralized perpetual futures exchange. Proponents argue this focus allows for maximal efficiency, tighter security, and governance tailored specifically to traders. Investing in a Hyperliquid-based project was often seen as a bet on a novel, high-performance niche. Solana : In contrast, Solana is a general-purpose, high-throughput Layer 1 blockchain. It hosts a vast and diverse ecosystem of applications, from DeFi and NFTs to gaming and social media. Its primary strengths are its proven scalability, immense liquidity pool, and large, active developer community. Building on Solana offers network effects but also means competing for attention within a crowded marketplace. The Trove team’s rationale likely hinges on Solana’s established market fit. Data from 2024 consistently showed Solana leading in non-EVM DeFi activity and user engagement. For a project building a perpetual DEX, immediate access to Solana’s deep liquidity and large user base could be a decisive advantage for launch and growth. However, this pragmatic argument collided with the specific investment thesis of backers who believed in Hyperliquid’s specialized future. Expert Analysis on Developer Pivots and Investor Trust Industry observers note that while developer pivots are not uncommon in the fast-moving crypto sector, the scale and timing of Trove’s shift are particularly notable. “The closer a pivot occurs to a token generation event, the higher the scrutiny,” explains a blockchain venture analyst who requested anonymity due to firm policy. “Investors allocate capital based on a specific technological stack and roadmap. A late-stage change can be perceived as a breach of trust, even if the new direction is commercially sound. The refund mechanism is a necessary, but costly, tool to manage that reputational risk.” Furthermore, this incident touches on broader themes of governance and transparency in early-stage crypto projects. Unlike traditional equity fundraising, many token sales operate in a regulatory gray area, where investor protections are often defined by community norms and the project’s own promises rather than formal securities law. The Trove investor backlash serves as a case study in how these norms are tested and enforced by the community itself through social pressure and demands for capital return. The Ripple Effect and Market Implications The fallout from Trove’s decision extends beyond its immediate investor base. This event sends a signal to the broader market about the perceived viability of emerging blockchain ecosystems versus established giants. Comparative Impact: Trove’s Pivot Decision Aspect Potential Positive Impact Potential Negative Impact For Solana Validates its dominance as the go-to chain for high-performance DeFi; attracts more developer attention. Raises questions about centralization of projects on a few large chains. For Hyperliquid None directly from this event. Could be perceived as a setback, raising doubts about its ability to attract and retain major projects. For Future Crypto Fundraises May lead to more explicit contractual terms regarding fund use and pivot conditions. Could increase investor skepticism and due diligence, potentially making fundraising harder for all but the most established teams. For DeFi Users May result in a better-funded, more competitive perpetual DEX on a liquid network (if Trove succeeds). Highlights instability and uncertainty in project roadmaps, potentially reducing user trust. Moving forward, the success or failure of Trove’s perpetual DEX on Solana will be closely watched. If the project thrives, it may retrospectively justify the controversial pivot in the eyes of some. Conversely, if it struggles, the Trove investor backlash will be remembered as a prescient warning. The situation also places a spotlight on the project’s execution capability, as it must now deliver under increased scrutiny and with a potentially divided community. Conclusion The Trove investor backlash underscores a critical juncture in decentralized project development, where technological agility must be balanced with unwavering commitment to investor expectations. The pivot from Hyperliquid to Solana, framed as an existential necessity by the team, has ignited a fierce debate over trust, capital allocation, and the future of specialized versus general-purpose blockchains. While the partial refunds address immediate grievances, the long-term reputational damage and the project’s ultimate performance on Solana remain uncertain. This event serves as a potent reminder that in the dynamic world of cryptocurrency, clear communication and aligned incentives between builders and backers are as vital as the code itself. The resolution of this Trove investor backlash will likely influence how future projects navigate similar strategic crossroads. FAQs Q1: Why are Trove investors demanding refunds? Investors are demanding refunds because they provided $11.5 million in funding based on Trove’s original plan to build a perpetual DEX on the Hyperliquid blockchain. The team’s subsequent decision to pivot and use those funds to build on Solana instead violated the specific premise of the investment for many backers. Q2: How much money has Trove refunded so far? As of the latest reports, the Trove project has refunded $2.44 million to investors who protested the pivot. The team has also announced plans to issue an additional $100,000 in refunds. Q3: What reason did the Trove team give for pivoting to Solana? The Trove team stated that building its perpetual decentralized exchange on the Solana ecosystem represented “the only path for the project’s survival.” They likely cited Solana’s larger user base, deeper liquidity pools, and more mature developer ecosystem as key reasons for the strategic shift. Q4: What is the difference between Hyperliquid and Solana? Hyperliquid is an application-specific blockchain built solely for perpetual futures trading, offering a specialized, optimized environment. Solana is a general-purpose, high-speed Layer 1 blockchain that hosts a wide variety of applications, including many DeFi protocols, and is known for its high throughput and large community. Q5: Could this Trove investor backlash happen to other crypto projects? Yes, similar backlash can occur whenever a project makes a fundamental change to its core technology or business model after raising funds, especially if the change contradicts the specific promises made to investors during the fundraising phase. It highlights the importance of clear communication and governance in web3 projects. This post Trove Investor Backlash Erupts After Shocking Pivot from Hyperliquid to Solana first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

19 Jan 2026, 15:30

Trove Faces Refund Calls After Dropping Hyperliquid for Solana

Trove Markets faced fresh backlash after abandoning its planned Hyperliquid integration and shifting development to Solana. The move came only weeks after the team raised more than $11.5 million in a TROVE token sale that many supporters tied to a Hyperliquid-based roadmap. Consequently, angry backers began calling for refunds, saying the project changed its direction after taking their funds. The dispute has also reopened concerns about Trove’s transparency during its fundraise and how the team makes decisions under pressure. Trove Blames Liquidity Loss for the Chain Switch Trove announced the pivot on X and said new constraints forced a major rebuild. A builder known as Unwise later linked the change to a liquidity partner pulling 500,000 HYPE tokens. That commitment supported the Hyperliquid rollout and its required stake model. However, without those tokens, Trove could not meet the framework needed to launch new perpetual markets. Hence, the team said it will rebuild the perp exchange on Solana from scratch. The timing added to the tension. The TROVE sale ran from Jan. 8 to Jan. 11. Moreover, the token generation event is still set for Monday at 4:00 pm UTC. Trove also said refund processing and the Solana migration will slow the project’s next steps. Refund Demands Grow After Funding History Resurfaces Critics have pointed to Trove’s earlier capital decisions as a reason trust broke down fast. In November, Trove raised $20 million to acquire 500,000 HYPE tokens. That stash supported Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 stake, which acts as a slashable bond for market security. Significantly, some backers now question why the team walked away after building around that requirement. Social media users also argued the raise sold a specific product direction. Additionally, some investors said they wanted a new vote or revised terms before accepting a chain swap. The refund debate has become a proxy fight over investor rights in fast-moving token launches. ZachXBT Flags Activity as Governance Questions Expand Blockchain investigator ZachXBT added more scrutiny after highlighting Trove-linked transfers involving HYPE tokens and casino deposit addresses. While Trove has not publicly addressed each claim, the attention raised broader questions about treasury controls and disclosure. Besides governance concerns, the product focus remains unusual. Trove wants a perpetual trading venue centered on collectibles like Pokémon cards and Counter-Strike 2 skins. Bitwise estimated this niche could grow into a $21.4 billion market. Trove argues Solana offers better infrastructure for that vision. However, the team now faces a credibility test as it tries to keep shipping while calming refund pressure.

19 Jan 2026, 12:44

Cardano’s Charles Hoskinson slams Ripple’s CEO over U.S. crypto bill

Despite being a big part of the cryptocurrency bull case for 2026, the U.S. CLARITY Act is shaping up to be a major point of contention within the industry, and Cardano’s ( ADA ) Charles Hoskinson and Ripple’s Brad Garlinghouse appear to be on opposite sides of the debate. Specifically, in a live broadcast on Elon Musk’s X, dated January 18, Hoskinson voiced his displeasure with Garlinghouse’s continued backing of the bill. Indeed, Ripple CEO praised the Senate Banking Committee’s so-called CLARITY Act in a January 14 X post, calling it ‘long-overdue’ but also ‘a massive step forward in providing workable frameworks for crypto, while continuing to protect consumers.’ While long-overdue, this move by @SenatorTimScott and @BankingGOP on market structure is a massive step forward in providing workable frameworks for crypto, while continuing to protect consumers. Ripple (and I) know firsthand that clarity beats chaos, and this bill’s success is… https://t.co/EWcml1NpBE — Brad Garlinghouse (@bgarlinghouse) January 14, 2026 Garlinghouse, within the same statement, emphasized that the main benefit of the legislative move is clarity for the industry, while noting that he and his company ‘know firsthand that clarity beats chaos.’ Ripple has been involved in a destructive legal battle against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for years and only settled the issue in the summer of 2025. Hoskinson, along with several other prominent cryptocurrency executives, has been growing increasingly critical of the CLARITY Act and its continued supporters. The Cardano founder was particularly shocked that Garlinghouse’s approach appears to be that having no legislation is better than having no legislation. “And you still got people like Brad saying, well, it’s not perfect, but we just got to get something, you know, it’s better than no clarity. Handed to the same people who sued us,” Hoskinson declared. Why Cardano’s Hoskinson opposes the CLARITY Act Indeed, Charles Hoskinson appears concerned with the time CLARITY Act took to take shape, and not just with its contents, having previously blamed President Donald Trump – whom he described as a ‘mercurial boy-king’ in the latest broadcast – for his involvement with various presidential family-branded digital assets. He also blamed the commander-in-chief for eroding trust in cryptocurrencies at a critical time, explaining he was particularly disappointed as he initially viewed the Republican’s electoral victory as a positive development for the sector. Elsewhere, Hoskinson is far from the only prominent figure in the industry to not back the CLARITY Act. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong announced he is withdrawing his support for the legislation on January 14. According to Armstrong, the biggest issues with the document are a de facto ban on tokenized assets, giving the government too much oversight over individuals’ financial records, a depowering of the CFTC in favor of the SEC, and amendments that could kill rewards on stablecoins . After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48hrs, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written. There are too many issues, including: – A defacto ban on tokenized equities – DeFi prohibitions, giving the government unlimited access to your financial… — Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) January 14, 2026 Hoskinson took particular issue with empowering the SEC, saying: “137 amendments later, it hands the entire keys to the cryptocurrency kingdom to the SEC. And you have to go and beg for them to make it not a security. All new projects are securities by default. How is that any better than what Scary Gary (Former SEC Chair Gary Gensler) gave us under Biden.” Why Ripple prioritizes legal clarity Garlinghouse’s perspective, for what it is worth, appears sensible and unsensible at the same time. On the one hand, backing an imperfect piece of legislation for the sake of some clarity appears at odds with Ripple’s own legal history. Indeed, the SEC has, for years, insisted that the rules for the cryptocurrency market are clear, and the fact that various digital assets companies disagree with the framework does not make it invalid. The posterchild for this approach has been the application of the famous Howey Test on coins and tokens, and especially those involved in initial coin offerings (ICOs). Considering such a history, it appears odd that Garlinghouse would praise deficient legislation simply for the sake of it providing clarity. On the other hand, however, Ripple has been embroiled in a legal battle against a Federal agency for years and has, along with multiple other companies, argued that new bills are needed as the existing framework – with the Howey Test once more being a posterchild – simply being inadequate. Between the fact that the CLARITY Act is, at the very least, a tailor-made piece of legislation, XRP’s strong market success in the wake of the SEC settlement, and Ripple’s expansion and continuation of operations as exemplified by the RLUSD stablecoin’s growth and the latest 1 billion XRP unlock , a desire for clarity moving forward does appear sensible. Featured image via Messari YouTube The post Cardano’s Charles Hoskinson slams Ripple’s CEO over U.S. crypto bill appeared first on Finbold .