btc
Bitcoin (BTC)
$70,784.00 2.23%
Bitcoin price
eth
Ethereum (ETH)
$2,095.38 0.37%
Ethereum price
bnb
BNB (BNB)
$641.76 -1.03%
BNB price
sol
Solana (SOL)
$87.20 -0.54%
Solana price
xrp
XRP (XRP)
$1.43 0.34%
XRP price
shib
Shiba Inu (SHIB)
$0.0000061 -2.61%
Shiba Inu price
pepe
Pepe (PEPE)
$0.0000038 -2.12%
Pepe price
bonk
Bonk (BONK)
$0.0000063 -2.94%
Bonk price
wif
dogwifhat (WIF)
$0.23 -2.55%
dogwifhat price
popcat
Popcat (POPCAT)
$0.0516 -2.68%
Popcat price
btc
Bitcoin (BTC)
$70,784.00 2.23%
Bitcoin price
eth
Ethereum (ETH)
$2,095.38 0.37%
Ethereum price
bnb
BNB (BNB)
$641.76 -1.03%
BNB price
sol
Solana (SOL)
$87.20 -0.54%
Solana price
xrp
XRP (XRP)
$1.43 0.34%
XRP price
shib
Shiba Inu (SHIB)
$0.0000061 -2.61%
Shiba Inu price
pepe
Pepe (PEPE)
$0.0000038 -2.12%
Pepe price
bonk
Bonk (BONK)
$0.0000063 -2.94%
Bonk price
wif
dogwifhat (WIF)
$0.23 -2.55%
dogwifhat price
popcat
Popcat (POPCAT)
$0.0516 -2.68%
Popcat price

Hoskinson talks big, Cardano’s reality tells another story

Anna Akopian
Edited by
Feature
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson balancing bold claims and delivery gaps

From Ethiopia’s education system to a Wyoming health clinic, Hoskinson projects grand visions, but Cardano’s progress remains limited, uneven, and increasingly overshadowed by rivals.

Summary
  • Charles Hoskinson promotes bold ventures in healthcare and de-extinction while Cardano, his blockchain, struggles to match rivals in adoption, liquidity, and developer engagement.
  • Cardano’s smart contract rollout in 2021 proved rigid and discouraging for developers, pushing growth toward Ethereum and Solana, which now dominate in transactions, DeFi, and developer activity.
  • Governance reforms have introduced budgeting and on-chain voting, yet disputes, abstentions, and concentration of power continue to raise doubts about Cardano’s independence and long-term direction.
  • Hoskinson critiques Ethereum’s governance and design while pursuing side projects, but Cardano’s stalled adoption and weaker fundamentals suggest a widening gap between his rhetoric and delivery.

The Hoskinson pitch

In September 2025, Cardano Cardanoada-0.65% Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson returned to the spotlight at the Rare Evo conference in Las Vegas. Speaking to CoinDesk’s cameras, he declared that “health care is just f***ed in America” while unveiling a $200 million clinic project in Gillette, Wyoming.

He described the clinic as open-sourced and patient-first, saying it already serves about one-third of the town’s population. He added that patients unable to pay are not charged, and claimed the existing hospital was resisting the initiative by obstructing the credentialing of his doctors. 

Hoskinson also promised that artificial intelligence agents and selective disclosure cryptography would eventually be built into the system.

Almost at the same time, Hoskinson returned to one of his long-running critiques of Ethereum Ethereumeth0.62% Ethereum. He argued that the “Magnificent Seven” technology firms could become the next gatekeepers of liquidity in crypto and may choose to bypass Ethereum altogether.

He repeated his prediction that Ethereum might not survive beyond the next 10 to 15 years, pointing to its reliance on external scaling solutions and what he considers weak architectural design.

That skepticism toward rivals has often gone hand in hand with bold promises about Cardano’s own reach. 

In 2021, Hoskinson announced a partnership with Ethiopia’s Ministry of Education that was presented as a national breakthrough, with blockchain IDs promised for 5 million students and 750,000 teachers and academic records verified directly on Cardano. 

The project was held up as proof of real-world adoption at scale. In 2024, Input Output Global described the effort instead as a set of lessons and reflections and noted that Atala PRISM, once central to the deal, had been folded into Hyperledger Identus. 

That change reframed a flagship deployment into a learning exercise and placed the technology under a consortium standard rather than Cardano itself, undercutting the original narrative of transformative adoption. 

With so much activity around Hoskinson and Cardano, it is worth looking more closely at where the project stands and how it compares with its competitors.

Solana and Ethereum run while Cardano crawls

In that same interview, Hoskinson made a rare admission. He conceded that Cardano “bet wrong” on its smart contract model in 2021.

He described it as too rigid and unfriendly for developers, a choice that pushed many builders toward faster-growing ecosystems like Solana Solanasol-0.54% Solana.

The timeline shows how this unfolded. Cardano launched in 2017 but did not release general-purpose smart contracts until the Alonzo hard fork on September 12, 2021.

Expectations had been building for years, yet within days, developers ran into concurrency issues on early decentralized exchange testnets such as Minswap.

These problems came from Cardano’s extended UTXO architecture, which processes transactions differently from Ethereum’s account-based model. The design was promoted as more secure and predictable, but in practice, it made complex applications harder to build.

Hoskinson tried to dismiss the concerns as misunderstandings, yet the reality was that a long-promised feature arrived with friction that immediately discouraged developers.

Subsequent upgrades were introduced to close the gap. The Vasil hard fork, aimed at scaling and improving Plutus, was planned for June 2022 but slipped to late September. Each delay added to the impression that Cardano could not deliver at the pace of the broader industry.

While competitors were attracting projects across decentralized finance, NFTs, and tokenization, Cardano was still working to stabilize the basics of its smart contract environment.

Adoption numbers show the effect. As of Sep. 10, Cardano’s total value locked in DeFi stood near $390 million. Solana held about $12.5 billion. Ethereum remained far ahead at $93 billion.

The gap is not only about size but also about lost momentum. When liquidity and developers move elsewhere, the network effect builds against the slower chain.

Ethereum processed about 1.4 million smart contract executions per day in mid-2025. Cardano processed around 52,000. Developer activity reflected the same divide, with Ethereum supporting about 3,200 active monthly developers compared with Cardano’s 720.

The contrast with Solana makes the divergence sharper. Cardano entered the first quarter of 2025 with weaker fundamentals, averaging about 71.5k daily transactions, a 28% drop from the previous quarter.

Solana, in the same period, processed millions of daily transactions supported by a large wallet base. Average fees were about $0.00025, and throughput ranged between 40,000 and 65,000 transactions per second, with more efficiency promised through the Firedancer client.

A pattern becomes clear when all the data is combined. Cardano often arrives late, delivers less than expected, and then tries to present the outcome as part of a longer journey.

Governance or gatekeeping?

Cardano’s governance was designed as a three-part system. Input Output took responsibility for protocol development, the Cardano Foundation handled ecosystem promotion and standardization, and Emurgo focused on commercial applications.

The layered setup created complexity from the start and led to perceptions of centralization, rather than the decentralization Hoskinson often highlights as Cardano’s defining principle. The history of the project shows why.

In 2018, Hoskinson and Emurgo chief executive Ken Kodama publicly called for the resignation of the Cardano Foundation’s chairman. They accused the Foundation of weak community engagement and poor transparency.

That early clash set the tone for recurring disputes over how the project is governed. In early 2025, the Cardano Foundation, acting within Intersect’s governance framework, proposed a 30% reduction in the ecosystem’s draft budget. 

The largest cut was directed at Input Output, whose allocation was set to fall by about 44%, from roughly 69.8 million ADA to 38.8 million ADA. 

Hoskinson objected, warning that such reductions risked slowing core technical development. The dispute revived questions about how much independence these entities truly held and whether governance choices were aligned with Cardano’s long-term technical needs.

Meanwhile, in 2025, Cardano also introduced a structured annual budgeting process managed through elected delegates and Intersect committees. 

For the first time, the community approved allocations via on-chain voting, covering both ecosystem funding and protocol governance. These governance steps were designed to improve accountability and transparency, but participation has remained limited. 

As of May 2025, approximately 11.7 billion ADA had been delegated to governance representatives. Of that, about 6.23 billion ADA was directed to the Abstain delegate and another 173 million ADA to No Confidence.

In parallel, roughly 68% of individual delegators chose Abstain, leaving only about 48% of the delegated ADA aligned with representatives able to actively cast votes.

Cardano’s circulating supply stood at 35.3 billion ADA, yet only about one-third had been delegated. Of that delegated portion, just 14% of the total supply was actively aligned with autonomous representatives. A substantial share of potential voting influence therefore remains untapped.

Since much of the ADA held on exchanges remains undelegated, headline totals overstate participation, with real decision-making concentrated in a far smaller share of the network.

Meanwhile, Cardano also became embroiled in a high-profile dispute over unclaimed ADA vouchers.

Allegations surfaced in May 2025 claiming that Hoskinson and IOG had manipulated the blockchain during the 2021 Allegra hard fork to seize about $600 million in ADA.

Hoskinson denied the accusations, and an independent 128-page audit carried out by law firm McDermott, Will & Schulte, together with accounting firm BDO, later cleared him of wrongdoing.

The report, released on Sep. 3, confirmed that nearly all vouchers issued through Cardano’s pre-launch sales were successfully redeemed and that unclaimed ADA had been properly moved into reserves.

Even so, the lack of clarity damaged confidence as investors questioned the project’s governance and transparency.

That backdrop makes Hoskinson’s criticism of Ethereum more pointed and more paradoxical. He has often described Ethereum as a dictatorship around Vitalik Buterin.

Ethereum’s governance is based on open proposals and informal consensus through processes such as Ethereum Improvement Proposals. Decisions evolve from broad community debate rather than from a central authority.

Cardano’s model, in contrast, continues to revolve around three main entities that hold considerable influence despite the introduction of on-chain mechanisms.

Cardano drifts as its founder chases side quests

Hoskinson has promoted the Hoskinson Health and Wellness Clinic as a $200 million investment in Gillette, Wyoming. Local reporting in 2022, however, estimated the combined renovation and land development costs at closer to $18 million.

Promises of artificial intelligence integration and cryptocurrency payment systems remain future projections rather than active features. His claims that patients who cannot pay are not charged come without transparent data on how many individuals have actually received such care.

There are no publicly available metrics on patient outcomes, service volume, or adoption of the blockchain features he now associates with the clinic’s mission.

At the same time Hoskinson remains invested in one of the more unusual ventures connected to the crypto world, the de-extinction movement.

He is a backer of Colossal Biosciences, a company that has raised more than $200 million with promises to bring back woolly mammoths, dodos, and Tasmanian tigers. The investor list includes names as varied as Paris Hilton.

Conservationists and geneticists argue that such projects resemble spectacle more than science and that the money could be better directed toward protecting endangered species that still exist.

Even insiders at Colossal have criticized the company’s narrative and said they faced smear campaigns when they questioned the approach.

The effect of these side ventures is puzzling. While Cardano continues to struggle with low decentralized finance traction, limited developer momentum, and a lackluster record of adoption, its founder is speaking more about curing healthcare or reviving long extinct animals than about strengthening Cardano’s ecosystem.

The contrast between rhetoric and delivery grows sharper with each new announcement. The question is whether these ventures represent bold experimentation or distractions that take attention away from building a blockchain able to compete with its peers.

Archax enables onchain portfolios on Hedera with launch of Pool Token

Jayson Derrick
Edited by
News
Hedera Native Token HBAR

Archax, a digital asset exchange, brokerage, and custodian regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority, has launched “pool tokens,” enabling multi-asset portfolio creation on the Hedera Network.

Summary
  • UK-regulated platform Archax has partnered with Hedera to launch Pool Token functionality.
  • Pool tokens allow market participants to create multi-asset portfolios onchain.
  • Users can transfer pool tokens or use them as collateral.

Archax and Hedera announced the partnership and launch of Pool Token functionality on Sept. 10, noting that the new product allows users to tap into tokenization via a single token on Hedera Hederahbar1.52% Hedera. The launch of pool tokens means users can now create a multi-asset portfolio onchain from tokenized assets across the market.

What is a pool token?

A “pool token” is a new transferable token that represents a basket of tokenized assets onchain. In the context of Archax and Hedera’s integration, this is a token that will allow an issuer to create a multi-asset portfolio that can include a range of assets such as equity, debt, funds and cryptocurrencies. 

According to Archax, pool tokens allow investors to diversify their investment strategies, with the flexibility of creation adding to the overall benefits of an onchain product.

Graham Rodford, the co-founder and chief executive officer of Archax, noted:

“By enabling the creation of Pool Tokens, an issuer could come to us to create a natively on-chain portfolio, basket, index or fund. Tokenised portfolios can be assembled, transferred, and managed with speed and flexibility, so we’re eliminating the operational inefficiencies that have long plagued traditional investment structures – all while maintaining regulatory compliance and institutional-grade security.”

BlackRock funds in first basket

The rollout has the first Pool Token lined up for a mix of some of the top money market funds in the world, with the basket covering asset managers like Aberdeen, BlackRock, and State Street.

As well as instant fund creation, pool tokens offer the benefit of transferability and composability. In this case, users can migrate an entire portfolio across chains without the burden of complex paperwork or the friction of dealing with transfer agents.

Pool tokens can also be utilized as collateral on Archax’s Nest network.

Hyperliquid stablecoin fight for USDH heats up amid fairness concerns

Anna Akopian
Edited by
Feature
Hyperliquid USDH stablecoin

Hyperliquid’s push to launch USDH has triggered a high-stakes competition among both corporate and DeFi players, each pitching unique strategies. As the Sept. 14 vote approaches, questions are mounting over whether the process genuinely favors the most capable bidders or leans toward certain entrants.

Summary
  • Hyperliquid is racing to launch USDH, its own stablecoin, to reduce reliance on USDC and capture more reserve yield.
  • Bidders, including Ethena and Paxos, propose different collateral, yield, and integration strategies.
  • Yet, concerns remain that the process may favor certain entrants only.

Hyperliquid is moving toward launching its own stablecoin, USDH, which has kicked off a competitive race among corporate and DeFi-focused teams, as the exchange recently issued a request for proposal for the USDH ticker, with the winning firm potentially handling billions in trading volume and a significant portion of reserve revenue.

The decision to launch a brand-new stablecoin seems aimed at cutting reliance on Circle‘s USDC stablecoin, which currently makes up most of Hyperliquid’s roughly $5.5 billion in reserves and generates approximately $200 million a year for Circle.

Creating USDH could let Hyperliquid keep more of that yield in-house and gain greater control over liquidity and reserve management, giving users a more direct role in the platform. As of press time, the RFP has attracted a wide range of contenders, with each taking a somewhat different approach:

  • Ethena Labs proposes a USDH fully backed by USDtb, a stablecoin connected to BlackRock’s BUIDL fund and soon to be issued through Anchorage Digital Bank. They’ve pledged to return 95% of net revenue from USDH reserves to the Hyperliquid ecosystem and cover the costs of migrating existing USDC trading pairs.
  • Paxos, a stablecoin issuer better known for its involvement in Binance’s BUSD and PayPal’s PYUSD, has submitted a proposal to launch USDH aiming to integrate PayPal and Venmo rails into the USDH ecosystem. Paxos emphasizes regulatory compliance with NYDFS and EU MiCA rules and plans to direct 95% of reserve yield to HYPE buybacks.
  • Frax Finance plans to mint USDH at parity with frxUSD and Treasuries, channeling all Treasury yield to Hyperliquid users, focusing on leveraging decentralized finance mechanisms to enhance yield distribution for USDH holders.
  • Sky Ecosystem, formerly known as MakerDAO, proposes a decentralized issuance model offering a 4.85% yield, backed by an $8 billion balance sheet. They also plan to integrate their buyback system into Hyperliquid and fund a Hyperliquid Star initiative to support platform growth.
  • Agora, a privacy-focused DeFi protocol, has committed 100% of net income from USDH to platform support funds or HYPE token buybacks. Their proposal emphasizes community-driven growth and sustainability within the Hyperliquid ecosystem.
  • Native Markets positions itself as fully aligned with Hyperliquid and proposes a 50/50 split of yield between platform growth and the Assistance Fund, trying to balance ecosystem development with user support initiatives.

Sam, a research analyst at Messari, also known under the alias @0xCryptoSam, explained in an X post that the “number one priority for USDH is a long-term, synergistic partner,” suggesting that alignment ultimately comes down to revenue potential and the value of Hyperliquid’s HYPE token.

According to the analyst, table stakes include GENIUS compliance, high HYPE buybacks, diversified collateral, and deep liquidity. And as of press time, Ethena’s proposal stands out, Sam writes, adding further that the firm’s stablecoin goes beyond a standard t-bill-backed model.

“What I find most interesting about the Ethena proposal is their commitment to grow the USDH product beyond what USDC does today. Their proposal to launch reward-incentivized collateral and a prime brokerage to use different underlying assets (e.g., BTC, HYPE, or USDe) for collateral stood out to me as unique from other USDH proposals.”

@0xCryptoSam

Paxos, for example, offers a more conventional path for institutions and whales, with regulatory reassurance and an established track record, whereas Frax and Sky appeal to the DeFi community by prioritizing transparency and yield flows. Native Markets leans heavily on platform alignment, but its lack of prior stablecoin experience introduces additional uncertainty.

The final vote on Sept. 14 will show how Hyperliquid is planning to balance regulatory compliance with DeFi ambitions. While many teams are rushing to submit competitive bids, concerns remain about how seriously some proposals are being considered.

Haseeb Qureshi, partner manager at Dragonfly, called the USDH RFP “a bit of a farce” in an X post on Sept. 9, saying bidders suspect validators are all-in on Native Markets.

“Native Markets’ proposal came out almost immediately after the USDH RFP was announced, implying they had advanced notice. Everyone else scrambled over the weekend to put something together. So this whole USDH RFP was basically custom made for Native Markets.”

Haseeb Qureshi

Qureshi added in a follow-up post that many bidders think the process was already stacked in favor of Native Markets, adding that more than half of the USDH bidders privately agreed but stayed quiet to avoid backlash.