Is XRP Just Like Tether? Cardano’s Hoskinson Makes a Damning Case

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

• Hoskinson argues that Ripple’s revenues from acquisitions, stablecoins, and institutional tools accrue to the company — not to XRP token holders — mirroring how Tether works.
• He sees Ripple pivoting toward a “Web 2.5” model focused on institutional clients, which he believes further distances the company’s success from any benefit to XRP holders.
• On regulation, Hoskinson claims Ripple’s CEO is pushing for frameworks that would entrench dominant assets and crowd out newer crypto projects, raising serious conflict-of-interest questions.

Charles Hoskinson has never been shy about sharing his views on rival crypto projects. But his latest comments about XRP and Ripple carry a sharper edge — and a comparison that is likely to sting.

Speaking on The O Show with host Wendy O, the Cardano founder drew a direct parallel between Ripple and Tether, arguing that both companies are structured in a way that funnels financial gains to the issuing entity rather than to the people holding the token.

The Tether Comparison

Hoskinson’s central argument is straightforward: Ripple’s growing business empire — from its $1.2 billion acquisition of Hidden Road to its RLUSD stablecoin and institutional compliance tools — may generate substantial revenue, but XRP holders see none of it legally or structurally.

“None of the value has to accrue to XRP; it goes to the Ripple company,” he said, drawing a direct comparison to how Tether’s profits flow to its executives rather than to token holders.

His point is that XRP lacks the mechanisms — staking rewards, profit-sharing, or equity-like rights — that would allow holders to benefit from Ripple’s commercial success. Instead, he argues, Ripple builds momentum around XRP, drives up the price, sells its holdings, and reinvests those proceeds into acquiring other assets.

Web 2.5 and the Institutional Pivot

Hoskinson framed Ripple’s direction as part of a broader trend he calls “Web 2.5” — a hybrid approach that blends blockchain infrastructure with traditional business models. He placed Ripple alongside firms like Circle and Canton as companies moving toward institutional markets, not decentralized ecosystems.

To him, this pivot is telling. Privacy tools for automated institutional compliance and a Tether-style stablecoin signal that Ripple is building for enterprise clients — not for its own token community.

He also invoked the EOS comparison. Block.one raised $4 billion and accumulated a balance sheet worth billions in Bitcoin and Ether, yet the EOS network itself never matched that success. Hoskinson sees a similar dynamic at play with XRP.

Also Read: Wall Street Eyes Prediction Markets as Volume Hits Record Highs

The Regulatory Angle

Perhaps most pointedly, Hoskinson accused Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse of lobbying for regulatory frameworks that would benefit entrenched players — XRP, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano — while making it harder for newer projects to operate without being classified as securities.

If true, it’s a significant allegation: that Ripple is not just protecting its own interests, but actively shaping market structure to limit competition.

The Other Side

XRP supporters aren’t sitting quietly. Many point to the token’s long-term price performance — a roughly 20,000% gain over the past decade — as proof that holders have benefited, regardless of how Ripple’s corporate structure is designed.

That debate is unlikely to settle soon. But Hoskinson’s comments have reignited a fundamental question in crypto: when a company sells tokens to fund its growth, who actually wins?

Disclaimer: The information in this article is for general purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The author’s views are personal and may not reflect the views of Chain Affairs. Before making any investment decisions, you should always conduct your own research. Chain Affairs is not responsible for any financial losses.