After the initial article on this debate was published, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) leadership complained about several inaccuracies in the content. The legal body alleged that the content was inaccurate because it does not correctly speak about:
- The Uniform Law Commission’s mission
- Drafters of the UCC
- The mandatory use of an intermediary
It has to be said that the ULC standard concerns are without merit.
Regarding the first point, the content defines the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) as a group “with the mission of keeping the state laws in the U.S as uniform as possible.” The legal body decries this assertion. It insists that the “ULC doesn’t seek to create state law uniformity on every topic. Rather it does this in a way that uniformity across the entire states becomes practicable and desirable.”
Bitcoin (BTC) Price Today – BTC / USD
ULC’s Explanation is Based on the Language Used on its Website
The ULC’s explanation of the concept is belied by the language on its website. Under entitled, Overview, the ULC’s site states that, “The Uniform Law Commission has since 1892 worked to achieve the uniformity of state laws”. Hence, it is safe to say the article wasn’t incorrect when it reported the ULC the way it.
Coming to the third point, according to the article “state-enacted UCC laws are derived from UCC model laws. These are drafted by attorneys in the ULC.” The Uniform Law Commission claims this statement isn’t correct because “it works hand in hand with the American Law Institute in drafting and amending the UCC.”
Nothing on ULC’s Website Related to the American Law Institute Attorneys Drafting Model Laws
Additionally, the ULC’s site undermines its argument in this case. There’s nothing on the site of the legal body that refers to the American Law Institute lawyers drafting model laws. Following what is stated in the Supplemental Act gives credit to the American Law Institute as an “advisor,” along with a second advisor, which is the American Bar Association.
So, even though the American Law Institute, and the American Bar Association, as well as other related organizations, are “responsible for the monitoring of new developments” along with “making recommendations,” they aren’t necessarily responsible for the drafting and amendment of the code. Hence, the initial article on the subject is not inaccurate.
Finally, regarding the second point, the ULC takes the position that the Supplemental Act doesn’t require crypto holders to use intermediaries, such usage is purely “voluntary.”
However, the Supplemental Act does that explicitly and by omission. It requires crypto owners seeking participation in the regulatory framework governing trade finance in the U.S., the UCC, to abandon their property rights to intermediaries according to the UCC’s Article 8.
Keith Rowley, who is Nevada’s ULC Commissioner and a member of the committee drafted to tackle the Supplemental Act, backs up the above conclusion. Rowley stated that he and his colleagues during the proceedings were worried about a lack of finance opportunities for crypto businesses as a result of “the lack of fractional-reserve banking for cryptos.”
According to Rowley, the Supplemental Act also addresses this concern. “It brings the framework from Article 8 of the UCC’s Code into the fold of the Supplemental Act, that applies to commodities and securities intermediaries.”