Cardano Founder’s Damning Verdict: Trump Crypto Policy More Harmful Than Biden’s to Industry

BitcoinWorld

Cardano Founder’s Damning Verdict: Trump Crypto Policy More Harmful Than Biden’s to Industry

In a revealing interview that has sent ripples through the financial technology sector, Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson delivered a stark assessment of U.S. cryptocurrency policy, arguing that actions under the Trump administration have proven more detrimental to the industry’s regulatory progress than those under President Biden. Speaking from his Colorado-based office in late March 2025, Hoskinson provided detailed context about how specific political events transformed promising bipartisan negotiations into a stalled partisan standoff, fundamentally altering the regulatory landscape for digital assets.

Cardano Founder Details Policy Impact Timeline

Charles Hoskinson, who created the Cardano blockchain and its ADA cryptocurrency, presented a chronological analysis during his conversation with CoinDesk. He recalled that the cryptocurrency industry initially welcomed President Trump’s 2024 election with significant optimism. Many industry leaders anticipated a regulatory environment that would favor innovation and clear guidelines. This optimism, however, proved remarkably short-lived. According to Hoskinson, the pivotal moment occurred in early February 2025 when President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump launched their respective official memecoins. This event, while seemingly minor in the broader political context, immediately reconfigured the cryptocurrency regulatory debate in Washington D.C.

The immediate consequence was a complete halt to productive discussions surrounding two critical pieces of legislation. Firstly, the Generative Economic Networks for Innovation and User Safety (GENIUS) Act, which aimed to establish a federal framework for stablecoin issuance and oversight. Secondly, the Crypto Legal Accountability and Regulatory Infrastructure for Technology and Yield (CLARITY) Act, designed to clarify the classification of digital assets and create a coherent market structure. Hoskinson asserted that both bills enjoyed substantial bipartisan support and were progressing through committee markups with genuine momentum before the memecoin launch reframed the entire conversation.

The Partisan Shift in Crypto Regulation

Hoskinson explained the mechanism of the disruption with specific detail. The launch of the political memecoins instantly politicized cryptocurrency in a new and profound way. Previously, digital asset regulation existed as a complex but largely technical issue, engaging lawmakers from both parties interested in financial innovation, consumer protection, and national competitiveness. Following the launch, the topic became entangled with broader political identities and loyalties. Consequently, lawmakers who were previously negotiating in good faith found themselves under pressure to align their positions with the new partisan framing of the issue. This shift effectively dissolved the fragile coalition needed to pass comprehensive legislation.

Comparing Trump and Biden Crypto Policy Approaches

To understand Hoskinson’s analysis, it is essential to examine the policy approaches of both administrations. The Biden administration’s strategy, particularly through the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), focused heavily on enforcement actions against what it deemed unregistered securities offerings. This approach created regulatory uncertainty and legal challenges for many firms but operated within established, albeit contested, legal frameworks. The Trump administration’s approach, as described by Hoskinson, introduced a different kind of disruption. By directly engaging with the most speculative and controversial segment of the crypto market—memecoins—the administration inadvertently legitimized a narrative that painted the entire industry as a vehicle for speculation and partisan promotion rather than serious technological innovation.

Key Differences in Regulatory Impact:

• Biden Era (2021-2024): Focus on enforcement and jurisdiction through existing agencies like the SEC and CFTC. Created a ‘regulation by enforcement’ climate.
• Trump Era (2025): Introduction of high-profile political figures into the asset class, shifting the debate from technical regulation to cultural and political symbolism.
• Result: The latter action, according to Hoskinson, caused more immediate damage by poisoning the well of bipartisan cooperation that was essential for passing foundational laws.

Legislative Impact Analysis: Early 2025

Legislation	Status Pre-February 2025	Status Post-Memecoin Launch	Primary Sticking Point
GENIUS Act (Stablecoins)	Bipartisan draft in Senate Banking Committee	Delayed indefinitely	Partisan alignment over issuer requirements
CLARITY Act (Market Structure)	House Financial Services Committee approval	Stalled in Senate	Debate over asset classification now politically charged

Expert Perspectives on Regulatory Stagnation

Hoskinson’s views find echoes in commentary from other blockchain policy analysts. Dr. Sarah Bloom, a former Treasury official and current fellow at the Brookings Institution, noted in a recent paper that the politicization of technical financial issues often leads to prolonged legislative inertia. She points to historical precedents where similar dynamics delayed critical updates to payments and banking laws for years. Furthermore, market data from Q1 2025 shows a noticeable cooling in venture capital investment for U.S.-based crypto infrastructure projects, with many firms publicly citing regulatory uncertainty as a primary concern. This capital flight contrasts with continued investment in jurisdictions with clearer digital asset frameworks, such as the European Union following its full implementation of MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation).

The real-world impact extends beyond investment. Major U.S. cryptocurrency exchanges and blockchain developers have reported increasing difficulties in planning long-term product roadmaps. Without clear rules on asset classification or stablecoin issuance, companies face significant legal and operational risks. This uncertainty forces them to either limit services for U.S. customers or operate in a legal gray area, neither of which supports healthy market growth or robust consumer protection. Hoskinson emphasized that the Cardano ecosystem itself has made strategic decisions to prioritize development and partnerships in regions with more predictable regulatory environments, a trend he observes across the industry.

The Path Forward for U.S. Crypto Policy

Despite the current impasse, Hoskinson suggested potential pathways to resurrect productive dialogue. He stressed the importance of decoupling cryptocurrency regulation from short-term political narratives and refocusing congressional attention on core issues of national interest. These include maintaining technological competitiveness with other major economies, protecting consumers from genuine fraud, and ensuring the stability of the financial system. Achieving this requires leadership from committee chairs and ranking members to reaffirm the technical nature of the subject. It also demands that industry advocates consistently engage with the substantive concerns of lawmakers rather than resorting to partisan rhetoric.

Conclusion

Charles Hoskinson’s analysis presents a compelling case that the Trump administration’s engagement with cryptocurrency, specifically through the launch of political memecoins, inflicted more immediate harm on the industry’s regulatory progress than the Biden administration’s enforcement-focused approach. The critical damage was not merely one of restrictive policy but of altered perception, transforming a bipartisan technical challenge into a polarized political issue. This shift successfully stalled the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts, legislation that many saw as foundational for the U.S. digital asset market. The Cardano founder’s verdict underscores a fundamental truth for the crypto sector: sustainable regulatory progress depends on stability, clarity, and a political environment that separates technological governance from cultural warfare. The future of U.S. leadership in blockchain innovation may hinge on the ability to rebuild that fragile consensus.

FAQs

Q1: What specific event does Charles Hoskinson blame for halting crypto regulation?
The Cardano founder identifies the February 2025 launch of official memecoins by President Trump and the First Lady as the pivotal event that shattered bipartisan cooperation on crypto bills.

Q2: Which two pieces of legislation were stalled according to Hoskinson?
Hoskinson claims the stablecoin bill (GENIUS Act) and the crypto market structure bill (CLARITY Act) would have passed had the memecoin launch not derailed bipartisan talks.

Q3: How did the Biden administration’s approach to crypto differ?
The Biden administration primarily utilized financial regulators like the SEC to pursue enforcement actions against projects deemed to be selling unregistered securities, creating a climate of legal uncertainty but within established frameworks.

Q4: Why does Hoskinson consider Trump’s actions more harmful?
He argues that while Biden’s policies created challenges, Trump’s actions politicized the core issue, turning a technical regulatory debate into a partisan conflict and destroying the coalition needed for legislative progress.

Q5: What is the current status of major crypto regulation in the U.S. as of mid-2025?
Following the events described, comprehensive federal cryptocurrency regulation remains stalled. Key bills are delayed indefinitely, leaving the industry governed by a patchwork of state laws and federal enforcement actions.

This post Cardano Founder’s Damning Verdict: Trump Crypto Policy More Harmful Than Biden’s to Industry first appeared on BitcoinWorld.