Perfection is the enemy: Why Ripple CEO insists on pushing for a compromise in crypto legislation

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse once again defends the legislative structure of the crypto market on social media, with a straightforward core message — we should not miss out on practical regulatory progress in pursuit of “perfect legislation.” This viewpoint reflects the industry’s urgent need for regulatory certainty and reveals deep contradictions on the path to crypto regulation.

From Calls to Compromise: Garlinghouse’s Realist Stance

Three levels of core advocacy

Garlinghouse’s argument revolves around a simple but powerful logic:

• Historical Lessons: No legislation can meet everyone’s standards; perfect bills simply do not exist
• Practical Needs: The most critical priority now is to establish a clear regulatory framework, not to pursue perfect provisions
• Value Judgment: “Clarity over chaos” — clear rules are more beneficial than regulatory uncertainty

This way of expressing is quite interesting. Garlinghouse isn’t saying how good legislation is, but making a trade-off: even if the legislation isn’t perfect, a clear regulatory framework is better than the current chaos. This reflects the industry’s strong desire for certainty.

Why bring this up now?

According to recent news, Ripple has been active in regulatory compliance: obtaining a Luxembourg Electronic Money Institution (EMI) license, holding over 75 global licenses, launching the stablecoin RLUSD, and listing on Binance. None of these are accidental — Ripple is demonstrating through concrete actions that under a clear regulatory framework, crypto companies can operate more effectively.

Meanwhile, Ripple President Monica Long recently predicted that by 2026, stablecoins will become the foundation of global settlement, with $76 billion in B2B payments settled via stablecoins last year. These data points show that there is genuine market demand for standardized crypto financial tools, and meeting this demand requires a clear regulatory framework.

Different Voices in the Industry

Not everyone agrees

It’s worth noting that not all crypto leaders support Ripple’s stance. Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson publicly opposed Ripple’s support for the current CLARITY bill draft, citing issues with the legislation. This reflects genuine internal disagreements within the crypto community about the regulatory direction — some believe in compromise and progress, others insist on principled positions.

Such disagreements are normal. Regulatory legislation is fundamentally about balancing interests; different stakeholders naturally have different demands. Garlinghouse’s call for compromise does not mean legislation is flawless, but that in the current environment, having a clear framework is more important than deadlock.

Regulatory Frameworks and Innovation

From “chaos” to “clarity”

From Ripple’s perspective, the biggest problem facing the crypto industry isn’t overly strict regulation, but regulatory uncertainty. This uncertainty:

• Hinders traditional financial institutions from entering crypto
• Limits the scaling of innovations like stablecoins
• Increases compliance costs and legal risks
• Weakens the motivation for crypto firms to cooperate with traditional finance

Ripple has experienced this firsthand in obtaining multiple global licenses — a clear regulatory framework has instead created more opportunities for them, not restrictions. That’s why Garlinghouse emphasizes “clarity over chaos.”

Possible Future Directions

Based on current information, the advancement of crypto regulation legislation may face several key milestones:

• Short-term: The specific provisions of the CLARITY bill are still under discussion, with ongoing negotiations among stakeholders
• Mid-term: Successful cases like Ripple’s compliance efforts could serve as references for legislation
• Long-term: Growth in the scale of stablecoin applications will drive the improvement of regulatory frameworks

It’s worth noting that Circle obtained the U.S.’s first “First National Digital Currency Bank” license, which could become a new benchmark for crypto financial compliance.

Summary

Garlinghouse’s “perfection is the enemy” argument essentially reflects a real dilemma: the crypto industry needs regulatory certainty to promote mainstream adoption, but perfect legislation will never arrive. Instead of waiting indefinitely for ideal solutions, it’s better to accept practical, workable frameworks and continuously improve through practice.

This pragmatic attitude may be more meaningful for industry development. While a clear regulatory framework isn’t perfect, it provides businesses, investors, and users with clear expectations — which in itself is progress. Of course, this doesn’t mean all provisions should be accepted blindly; it’s about recognizing the necessity of compromise while continuing to advocate for industry interests.