Charles Hoskinson Calls Clarity Act Section Removal 'Insanity' and 'Dystopian Nightmare'

Charles Hoskinson sharply criticized efforts to remove Section 604 from the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act after the National Fraternal Order of Police urged U.S. senators to reconsider the provision. The debate centers on whether open-source crypto developers and infrastructure providers could face legal exposure for how third parties use blockchain technology.

The Section 604

In a letter sent to Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren, National Fraternal Order of Police President Patrick Yoes argued that Section 604 would weaken law enforcement's ability to pursue financial crimes involving cryptocurrency. The organization warned that exempting "non-controlling developers or providers" from being treated as money transmitters could make it harder for prosecutors to target criminal networks using digital assets.

The insanity of their position is beyond any sense of reason. You develop open source software, you give it to the world, someone else who you've never met does something with it without your knowledge or consent, and then you're forever liable for THEIR ACTIONS.

It's a…

— Charles Hoskinson (@IOHK\_Charles) May 13, 2026 Hoskinson strongly rejected that argument, describing the position as irrational and fundamentally dangerous for software development. According to him, holding developers legally responsible for crimes committed by unrelated third parties would create a framework where creators of open-source software become permanently liable for actions entirely outside their control.

Destroying open source software

He argued that such a system would effectively destroy open public blockchain infrastructure by forcing developers toward closed and permissioned systems where every participant is monitored and approved. In his view, the proposal creates a legal environment so extreme that publishing open-source financial software could become comparable to assuming responsibility for every misuse of that software in the future. Hoskinson also compared the logic behind the proposal to blaming authors for crimes inspired by fictional books — a comparison intended to highlight what he sees as the absurdity of assigning criminal liability to creators for independent actions carried out by strangers. The controversy reflects a much broader fight currently happening in Washington over how cryptocurrency infrastructure should be regulated. Supporters of Section 604 argue that developers who merely publish code should not automatically be treated as financial intermediaries. Opponents, including some law enforcement groups, fear that those protections could create loopholes that criminals exploit through decentralized platforms and anonymous blockchain tools. The outcome of the debate could carry major consequences for the future of decentralized finance and open-source crypto development in the United States. If regulators move toward stricter liability standards, developers may increasingly relocate innovation outside U.S. jurisdiction or shift toward heavily controlled systems that sacrifice decentralization entirely.