2026-01-15 21:23:08

Ripple's leader Brad Garlinghouse recently discussed the latest trends in digital asset regulation. Regarding the "Digital Asset Market Transparency Act," he expressed surprise at the attitude of the CEO of a certain compliant platform, Brian Armstrong — the platform initially supported the bill but later retracted it.

However, Garlinghouse openly admitted that Armstrong's concerns about the restrictions on tokenized stocks and the stablecoin reward mechanisms in the bill are indeed reasonable. This is not simply a conflict of interest but a genuine industry consideration of the bill's details.

Interestingly, although a certain compliant platform chose to withdraw, Ripple, Circle, Kraken, and a16z are standing at the forefront, actively responding to the potential impact of this bill. This unseen policy tug-of-war reflects the differing visions within the digital asset industry regarding the future of stablecoins and tokenization.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

UnluckyValidator

· 9h ago

The crypto world is full of master face-changers. They say they support a turnaround but then oppose it. So funny.

View OriginalReply0

MeaninglessApe

· 9h ago

The tricks in the crypto world are just like this: soaring high and then retreating swiftly, truly exceptional.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatedNotStirred

· 9h ago

The political game in the crypto world just never seems to end.

View OriginalReply0

ZKSherlock

· 9h ago

actually... the tokenized securities restrictions thing is way more nuanced than the headline drama makes it sound. like, armstrong's got legitimate concerns about the mechanics, ngl. but here's what bugs me—everyone's treating this as binary support/opposition when really it's about trust assumptions baked into the policy framework itself, you know?

Reply0