On March 27, 2026, at 8:00 AM Beijing time, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse appeared on Fox Business Channel and, in an interview focusing on financial and technology policy, rare used an almost confrontational tone to systematically criticize the current regulatory framework for cryptocurrency in the United States. He pinpointed the long-standing regulatory approach that has dominated law enforcement pathways, arguing that substituting law enforcement for rule-making, in the absence of clear legislative support, has dragged the entire industry into a quagmire of high uncertainty. Surrounding the high-frequency statements of “stop weaponizing crypto policy” and “no more Gary Gensler moments,” Garlinghouse attempted to turn his personal experiences into a wake-up call for the entire U.S. regulatory system, emphasizing that if the regulatory path is not corrected, the U.S. could collectively stumble in a new round of competition in cryptocurrency technology and financial infrastructure.

The Ripple Battle Against the SEC

To understand Garlinghouse's emotions and the force of his words at this moment, one must return to the long-term background of Ripple's years-long struggle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This legal battle began several years ago, focusing on whether Ripple's issuance and sale of related tokens constituted securities, directly affecting the company's business layout, partner selection, and bank channel acquisition in the U.S. Under the shadow of litigation for an extended period, every move Ripple makes in the U.S. market requires repeated scrutiny by the legal team, with compliance costs and time losses magnified to levels that normal technology companies find difficult to bear.

In this collective memory, the “Gary Gensler moment” has gradually been shaped into a symbol—not only referring to the tough law enforcement style of a certain SEC chair but also representing collective fear of the "shoot first, legislate later" model. It signifies the moment when a company is suddenly taken to court, its business model is qualitatively retroactively defined, and contracts signed years ago are reinterpreted as illegal. For Garlinghouse, this is no longer just a case between Ripple and the SEC, but a systemic risk scenario that can be replicated for any cryptocurrency company.

In the Fox Business Channel interview, he summarized this memory with the phrase “no more Gary Gensler moments,” elevating his personal experience to a public issue for the entire industry: if the rules remain vague and boundaries continue to be contested, any company innovating domestically in the U.S. could potentially fall into the same abyss after years of investment. This narrative shift has transformed the case between Ripple and the SEC from a company-level lawsuit into a collective reflection on the choice of the regulatory path in the U.S.

Regulatory Tug-of-War for Years: The Boundary Battle Between the SEC and CFTC

Garlinghouse's criticism is not only aimed at a specific regulator but points to the long-term tug-of-war in the U.S. regarding the division of regulatory responsibilities for crypto assets. For years, SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have been engaged in a contest over whether crypto assets are securities, commodities, or other new asset classes: different classifications imply who leads the regulation, what rule systems to adopt, and what standards for disclosure and risk management to implement. Such disputes are clearly stated in the reports as "long-standing regulatory responsibility disputes," indicating that this is not a short-term political fluctuation but a structural issue that has persisted for years.

In the Fox Business Channel discussion, Garlinghouse pointed out that, on one hand, both the SEC and CFTC are advancing their own new regulatory frameworks (the research report referred to A/C sources), attempting to consolidate their discourse power in the crypto field through rule-making; on the other hand, Congress is attempting to provide principled guidance on asset classification and regulatory paths through legislation such as the CLARITY Act. The simultaneous advancement of various paths reflects both the U.S.'s emphasis on this field and further amplifies the practical dilemmas brought about by blurred boundaries.

For companies, the biggest problem lies in: as the SEC and CFTC each “carve out territory,” project founders, trading platforms, and infrastructure companies often find it difficult to accurately judge which type of regulatory framework they will ultimately fall under at an early stage. This means compliance teams need to leave space for multiple possibilities in structural design, product launch, and financing paths; legal opinions become thicker, yet timelines are extended invisibly. The soaring compliance consulting costs, the slowing product iteration speeds, and the forced adjustments in the pace of international expansion become the most direct economic consequences of the blurred regulatory boundaries.

Policy Used as a Weapon: How Companies Are Forced to Restructure Their Routes

In this interview, Garlinghouse delivered another weighty comment: “stop weaponizing crypto policy.” On the surface, this statement is an emotional accusation, but it actually points to a mode of enforcement: in the absence of clear, unified rules, policies and lawsuits are treated as tools for selectively targeting specific companies or business models, rather than regulations that help the market establish predictable order.

Ripple’s experiences are a typical example of this logic. At a stage where Congress has yet to provide systematic legislation and the SEC and CFTC are still contesting regulatory boundaries, case litigation has become the de facto “rule generator.” A particular company is sued, a certain token is later designated as a security or other category, and it is then immediately viewed by the market as a new industry “red line.” This enforcement-based replacement of legislation forces companies, when making strategic decisions, to weigh around “litigation deterrence,” even considering “the probability of being sued” as a decision variable equally important as financing costs.

In a highly uncertain regulatory environment, more and more companies choose to mitigate risk by moving their headquarters, reducing investments in the U.S. market, or delaying the launch of key products. Some startup teams choose to set up entities in overseas friendly jurisdictions early on, treating the U.S. as a “secondary market” or even a “watching market”; while some mature companies reduce their U.S. business lines and scale down their domestic teams to decrease exposure to regulatory storms. Garlinghouse's accusation, in essence, seeks a clear political language for these collective actions: “weaponized policies” have inversely shaped the global roadmap of enterprises.

CLARITY Act and Rule Expectations

In the face-off regulatory landscape, the CLARITY Act is viewed as an important attempt by Congress to legislate on cryptocurrencies. The research report points out that Garlinghouse talked about this bill in the interview, mentioning it alongside the new regulatory frameworks pushed by the SEC and CFTC. This indicates that the industry is not merely opposing regulation but is looking to higher levels, hoping to end the prolonged tug-of-war over responsibilities through legislation.

However, from the currently available public information, the specific provisions of the CLARITY Act are clearly marked as missing in the reports, and there is also a lack of authoritative information regarding the timeline for the implementation of the new SEC and CFTC frameworks. This “expectation amidst uncertainty” precisely reflects the current awkward situation: on one hand, companies and investors clearly realize that only by forming a unified and implementable rule system can the market truly move beyond the litigation-driven stage; on the other hand, in the absence of clear texts and timelines, any expectations about the legislation's implementation can only remain at the level of political statements, making it difficult to translate into “hard constraints” that can be incorporated into financial planning and product roadmaps.

Also, because of this, what the industry is truly concerned about is not who said the most persuasive support or opposition words at the congressional hearing, but rather: whether the rules are sufficiently clear and predictable, and whether enforcement is sufficiently consistent and replicable. For infrastructure projects that need five or even ten-year plans, only when teams can early on build a stable compliance pathway based on legal texts can crypto innovation be integrated into the mainstream capital asset allocation framework like traditional finance, rather than perpetually testing the regulatory red lines in gray areas.

U.S. Regulation Takes a Step Back: How Innovation and Capital Move

In Garlinghouse's narrative, the cost of the U.S. regulatory deadlock is no longer an abstract “missed opportunity,” but a visible trend of project and capital outflow. While the research report deliberately avoids specific market indicators, such as cryptocurrency prices or on-chain data, global industry participants can feel: as some overseas jurisdictions continue to introduce “crypto-friendly” frameworks and offer relatively one-stop licensing pathways, U.S. companies, on the other hand, face a myriad of regulatory bodies, multiple layers of political variables, and enforcement actions that could escalate at any time.

This uncertainty directly transmits to the decision-making levels of venture capital and large institutions. For venture capital, increasing exposure to domestic cryptocurrency projects before the legislative and regulatory boundaries have been clarified means having to bear the additional risk of revaluation brought about by sudden shifts in the legal environment. For large financial institutions and publicly traded companies, once crypto-related businesses are viewed as compliance “high-risk areas,” they could be entangled in audit opinions, shareholder lawsuits, and reputation management, leading them to prefer other jurisdictions with relatively clear regulatory paths as test beds in their global layouts.

Combining Garlinghouse's criticism, this trend is further elevated to a warning at the national competition level: if the U.S. continues to consume time on the struggle for regulatory authority and political tug-of-war without providing a set of predictable and enforceable rules, then the technical and financial dominance it established during the internet era could very well be diluted in the age of cryptocurrency and on-chain financial infrastructure. For him, “no second Gary Gensler moment is allowed” not only aims to prevent the next project from being suddenly sued but serves as a reminder to decision-makers: a single misstep or delay in regulation could result in a systemic shift in the entire innovation ecosystem.

Farewell to Regulatory Fog: The Industry Wants Predictable Game Rules

Beginning from the long-standing tug of war case between Ripple and the SEC, moving to the boundary contention between the SEC and CFTC, and then to Congress's efforts to establish a unified framework through legislation like the CLARITY Act, Garlinghouse's voice on the Fox Business Channel actually ties together a clear narrative thread: individual lawsuits are no longer just a matter of company fate but have been elevated to a national-level issue regarding which regulatory path the U.S. chooses in the age of cryptocurrency.

Along this narrative thread, his core demands can be distilled into two points: rules must be clear, execution must be consistent. Clarity means that companies can read approximate boundaries from legal texts early in product design, financing, and compliance team building, rather than retroactively deducing regulatory bottom lines from lawsuits; consistency means that regardless of which agency leads the enforcement or who is responsible, the same type of business model should receive generally similar treatment logic when reviewed, avoiding stark contrasts due to disputes over regulatory authority or political winds.

Looking to the future, whether it is congressional legislation like the CLARITY Act or the new regulatory frameworks individually promoted by the SEC and CFTC, if clearer responses can be provided on these two points, the industry will see not only a new set of rule texts but a new competitive landscape: enterprises can boldly innovate within defined boundaries, regulatory agencies can enforce efficiently under transparent rules, and capital can reassess the strategic value of the U.S. market within a predictable environment. For the crypto industry, deeply etched with the “Gary Gensler moment,” what is truly worth striving for is not the victory or defeat of a particular case, but a long-term order that no longer relies on individual case rulings.

Join our community, let's discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram group: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。