In Mexico, as in most jurisdictions around the world, blockchain is a well-known reality but with very few formally regulated use cases. True to the causes that gave rise to its best-known application, Bitcoin, the most significant blockchain-related use case under regulatory oversight is in financial applications in Mexico. Some institutions authorised by the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV) offer their users the possibility of exchanging cryptocurrencies and carrying out certain operations within the blockchain ecosystem, particularly those involving Mexican pesos.
However, to say that blockchain in Mexico is merely an ideal in the imagination of regulatory enthusiasts is inaccurate and, in a sense, reductionist. Since the first and possibly most influential use cases – Bitcoin and Ethereum – emerged in 2015–2016, blockchain has been used in private initiatives for the execution and certification of legal documents such as contracts, purchase orders and private records, among others.
While the broader potential of this technology still awaits the regulatory green light, there are ongoing efforts – though often isolated – by large financial institutions, early adopters (if the term still applies a decade after widespread awareness), universities and research institutions, and some public agencies. These actors are cautiously taking advantage of regulatory grey areas or vacuums, which arguably represent the clearest opportunities for near-term development of new use cases in the country. Perhaps this environment even provides an incentive for those who recognise that opportunity costs often arise during such formative stages.
In this context, high-profile failures such as the FTX collapse cannot be ignored, but they should not define the narrative around blockchain technology. Rather, they underscore the need for balanced regulation – capable of ensuring transactional security without restricting blockchain’s evolution to legacy financial models. State regulators should be encouraged not only to safeguard users but also to promote innovation by supporting emerging use cases, rather than measuring them against standards that may have proven insufficient – and which arguably gave rise to this new ecosystem in the first place.
Currently, the most widespread use of blockchain resources in Mexico remains focused on financial transactions, particularly cryptocurrency exchanges and transfers conducted through regulated institutions – a channel that, while secure, is somewhat limited in terms of variety and accessibility. The growth potential of these services remains significant, as adoption continues to be concentrated among individual users, with limited penetration at the corporate or institutional level. Nevertheless, these tools represent a versatile alternative to traditional financial services, although they still operate in close connection with the conventional banking system: most blockchain-based transactions ultimately originate from or settle into the traditional financial infrastructure.
By design, DeFi protocols and blockchain-based derivatives are not currently regulated in Mexico. However, some wallets and platforms enable users in the country to interact with global protocols that do not impose territorial restrictions. These interactions remain outside formal oversight, and users engage with them at their own risk.
One of the most accepted and practical blockchain use cases in Mexico involves document certification, electronic signatures and timestamping of transactions. These applications are generally consistent with Mexican commercial law, which recognises such records as valid – provided they comply with applicable technical standards and can ensure authenticity and integrity.
Despite the current legal uncertainty, there is clear and growing interest in asset tokenisation, including both tangible and intangible assets, yet the lack of regulatory guidance remains a key obstacle – particularly when it comes to enforcing obligations derived from blockchain-based documentation in case of dispute or non-performance.
Given that there is currently no specific regulation in Mexico governing the transfer of virtual assets, it is necessary to rely on general contractual principles under civil and commercial law. These systems operate on a consensual basis, where no particular formalities are required for a contract to be valid, as long as the object is lawful and possible, and there is clear consent between the parties.
Under this framework, signatures are generally recognised by law as valid forms of authentication, and only in specific cases – such as digital signatures for dealings with government authorities – is it required that the signature be issued by a government-certified entity. Accordingly, the use of a private cryptographic key can be interpreted as a valid method of authentication that evidences consent between the parties.
However, in the event of a dispute, the key legal challenge will be to establish the origin and integrity of the private key used, including the circumstances under which it was created and maintained. This would require evidence of the chain of custody and technical environment in which the key was generated and used, and could become a decisive factor in determining the validity or enforceability of the transaction.
In Mexico, the only statute that expressly refers to digital assets is the Fintech Law, which does not establish a formal classification system for these instruments. Instead, it provides a single, generic definition under the term “virtual assets”, the use of which is restricted to Electronic Payment Fund Institutions (IFPEs), subject to prior approval by the Bank of Mexico (Banxico).
Secondary regulation issued by Banxico defines a virtual asset as a unit of information recorded electronically, intended exclusively for use as a means of payment, capable of being transferred electronically, but which under no circumstances qualifies as legal tender, either in Mexico or in any foreign jurisdiction.
In this context, the concept of “digital asset” under Mexican law is more closely aligned – by analogy – with exchange tokens or stablecoins, rather than with a broader taxonomy that would include utility or security tokens. However, such analogies remain interpretative, since the Fintech Law does not formally recognise or differentiate between types of tokens, and Banxico has not authorised any digital asset for use by IFPEs to date.
In Mexico, no law currently recognises tokenised securities as a specific category of digital asset, and the Fintech Law makes the recognition of such instruments conditional on prior authorisation by the Banxico.
Within this framework, it is possible to draw comparisons with the characteristics of securities as defined under the Securities Market Law, which identifies common attributes such as transferability, negotiability and the capacity to confer ownership or corporate rights. At a more advanced regulatory level, these instruments may also be offered publicly and registered in the National Securities Registry, provided that governance, intermediation, and disclosure requirements are met.
On an exploratory basis, it may be feasible to consider issuing tokenised securities for private use, outside the scope of public offerings. At this level, such instruments should not be used in transactions involving regulated financial institutions, and their legal validity would likely depend on unanimous agreement among holders. For example, if tokens represent corporate capital, and all shareholders agree to use blockchain as a substitute or support mechanism for the traditional shareholder ledger, the effects would likely be limited to the parties involved. Nevertheless, enforcing the rights derived from such instruments against third parties would pose a significant legal challenge, particularly in the absence of official recognition or registration mechanisms.
As noted in 2.3 Tokenised Securities, Mexico’s legal framework does not formally recognise crypto-assets as a distinct legal category, nor does it establish sub-classifications among them. The law refers only to the concept of “virtual assets”, whose use is restricted to financial institutions, and only with prior authorisation from the Banxico.
That said, it is important to acknowledge the growing use of both fiat-backed and algorithmic stablecoins in Mexico, primarily through foreign platforms that operate outside the local regulatory perimeter. These typically rely on non-custodial wallets and international exchanges, which allow Mexican users to interact with stablecoins without the involvement of local regulated financial institutions.
Please refer to 2.2 Classification to 2.4 Stablecoins regarding the absence of regulatory classifications for digital assets in Mexico and the restrictions imposed by the Fintech Law, which limits the use of virtual assets to IFPEs, subject to prior approval by the Banxico.
That said, as with other digital assets, the lack of formal regulation has not prevented their informal use, particularly through foreign platforms and non-custodial applications.
Certain industries in Mexico have begun to experiment with the use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). These tokens may be considered digital assets and, in some cases, they have been associated with intellectual property rights, provided they comply with existing IP and commercial law requirements applicable in Mexico.
As for utility tokens or other rights derived from purely digital transactions, these may be used in connection with commercial activities, such as access to digital services, subscriptions, or prepaid credit systems offered by private platforms. However, the legal enforceability of such arrangements will depend on traditional contractual frameworks and compliance with applicable consumer protection and commercial regulations.
Due to the limited scope of applicable legislation and the specific restrictions imposed by the Banxico, as previously discussed, the legal framework in Mexico is generally unfavourable to the widespread use of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment. These restrictions apply even to transactions in foreign currencies: under Mexican law, the Mexican peso retains its status as legal tender, and creditors located within national territory may not refuse it as a form of payment.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, when certain virtual assets are voluntarily used and accepted as a means of payment, such transactions are subject to traditional legal and regulatory obligations, including:
Please refer to 2.2 Categorisation to 2.4 Stablecoins regarding the lack of regulatory classification for digital assets in Mexico and the restrictions imposed by the Fintech Law, under which only IFPEs may use virtual assets, and only with prior authorisation from the Banxico.
In the context of collateral arrangements, both the regulatory vacuum and the prohibition on financial institutions using unauthorised virtual assets are particularly significant. This is because financial institutions are typically the entities that originate loans secured by collateral, and their inability to interact with digital assets limits the feasibility of using such assets as security in regulated transactions.
That said, as will be further discussed, the self-executing nature of smart contracts offers a technical mechanism for automating enforcement once certain conditions are met. However, this does not resolve legal evidentiary issues in the event of a dispute. Even where smart contracts function effectively, beneficiaries of collateral enforcement must still establish their legal right to claim, particularly before a court or other authority, regardless of the automated execution.
In Mexico, the enforceability of smart contracts is not treated differently from other contractual arrangements. All agreements are subject to a well-established legal framework that sets out the requirements for existence including lawful and possible subject matter and mutual consent – as well as effectiveness requirements, such as formalities where required by law, legal capacity of the signatories, and absence of defects in consent.
In the view of the authors, the self-executing nature of smart contracts and their deployment within a blockchain ecosystem does not alter these foundational legal criteria. However, it introduces an additional evidentiary standard, where not only must the existence of the contract be proven, but also the manner in which the agreement was formed and executed, including the authentication of digital signatures or private key use.
On this point, as noted previously, Mexican commercial law allows contracts to be concluded via digital means and recognises their legal integrity – provided that data preservation and registration standards are met, in accordance with technical regulations previously issued under the Mexican legal framework.
As mentioned in 2. Digital Assets, in Mexico, there is no special regulation that directly addresses issues related to blockchain or the use of digital assets. The only legislation that addresses the issue of virtual assets is the Fintech Law and the secondary regulation issued by the central bank. This regulation limits the use of virtual assets authorised by Banxico exclusively to IFPEs operating under the legal framework of the regulation, but there is no reference to the digital registration system through blockchain, despite the fact that the very existence of virtual assets presupposes it.
Regulatory authorities in this area include the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV) as the regulatory body that authorises the operation of entities under the fintech umbrella; the Banxico, which is the entity empowered to authorise virtual assets that can be used by IFPEs; and the Tax Administration Service (SAT), which is the entity responsible for auditing income and other taxes arising from transactions that have economic impacts, as well as being the competent body for the prevention of money laundering (PLD or AML).
Licensing
In this regard, it is important to note that although there is a legal regime applicable to IFPEs, its legal design is not exclusively intended for operations with virtual assets, even though, in principle, these are the entities that are legally authorised to carry out transactions with such assets.
Marketing
Marketing associated with the promotion of services involving virtual assets is not strictly regulated, but freedom is limited, as the legal model adopted in Mexico is primarily restrictive and, therefore, not considered to be openly permissive for advertising or promoting transactions with digital assets.
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) Requirements
Mexico operates under the standards of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and has a system of solid institutions that together form a strict and constantly improving regulatory framework.
Since 2013, a law has been in force that establishes obligations for individuals and legal entities that carry out activities classified by the legislation itself as “vulnerable,” including:
Specific supervision of these activities and compliance with regulations is the responsibility of the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF), which reports to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP), which is the competent authority for reporting on regulated entities and analysing unusual or suspicious transactions.
Change of Control
In Mexico, as there are no entities that are openly authorised to operate in the blockchain ecosystem. Beyond the IFPEs already mentioned, the authors have not identified any regulations that apply to changes of control of entities operating in the blockchain ecosystem. However, it is important to mention that IFPEs, as regulated institutions, have reporting obligations and must obtain prior authorisation before making any relevant changes that could impact the control of the respective companies.
Resolution or Insolvency Regimes
IFPEs are subject to a special administrative liquidation regime, distinct from the general commercial insolvency proceedings applicable to non-financial entities. This regime is overseen by the CNBV and, where applicable, the Banxico. The CNBV may order liquidation or intervention in cases of:
In such cases, the CNBV appoints a liquidator to assess assets, determine liabilities and prioritise payment flows. Importantly, unlike commercial banks, no deposit insurance or investor protection scheme applies to client funds held by IFPEs.
Please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview, which fully addresses this point.
Please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview, which fully addresses this point.
Please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview, which fully addresses this point.
Please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview, which fully addresses this point.
Please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview, which fully addresses this point.
Please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview, which fully addresses this point.
While the specific issues raised in this section have not been addressed in detail elsewhere, there is currently no regulatory regime in Mexico that applies directly or comprehensively to these matters. Accordingly, and to avoid unnecessary duplication, please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview for the relevant context.
While the specific issues raised in this section have not been addressed in detail elsewhere, there is currently no regulatory regime in Mexico that applies directly or comprehensively to these matters. Accordingly, and to avoid unnecessary duplication, please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview for the relevant context.
While the specific issues raised in this section have not been addressed in detail elsewhere, there is currently no regulatory regime in Mexico that applies directly or comprehensively to these matters. Accordingly, and to avoid unnecessary duplication, please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview for the relevant context.
While the specific issues raised in this section have not been addressed in detail elsewhere, there is currently no regulatory regime in Mexico that applies directly or comprehensively to these matters. Accordingly, and to avoid unnecessary duplication, please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview for the relevant context.
While the specific issues raised in this section have not been addressed in detail elsewhere, there is currently no regulatory regime in Mexico that applies directly or comprehensively to these matters. Accordingly, and to avoid unnecessary duplication, please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview for the relevant context.
While the specific issues raised in this section have not been addressed in detail elsewhere, there is currently no regulatory regime in Mexico that applies directly or comprehensively to these matters. Accordingly, and to avoid unnecessary duplication, please refer to 4.1.1 Regulatory Overview for the relevant context.
The Mexican legal system is based on civil law, and therefore does not operate under a binding precedent model as in common law jurisdictions.
That said, Mexico does have a system of binding case law (jurisprudencia), derived primarily from constitutional control mechanisms, whereby certain judicial interpretations – particularly those issued by the Supreme Court – become mandatory for lower courts. These may involve the interpretation of both constitutional provisions and statutory law.
However, to date, there is no published jurisprudence or binding court decision in Mexico that directly addresses matters involving virtual assets, blockchain technology, or the regulatory frameworks discussed in this chapter.
To date, no enforcement actions have been reported in Mexico involving transactions carried out within the blockchain ecosystem or relating to digital assets.
Likewise, there is no public record of investigations or proceedings initiated by regulatory authorities – including those overseeing IFPEs – against any entity for activities involving virtual assets or the use of blockchain technology.
As previously noted, the Fintech Law and the secondary regulation issued by the central bank establish the applicable legal framework. It is not expected that, in the short term, authorities will introduce enforcement actions specifically targeting individuals conducting transactions with virtual assets, except in cases where such transactions intersect with the following regulated areas:
Mexican tax legislation does not explicitly address transactions involving blockchain technology or digital assets. Nevertheless, the Mexican tax system is sufficiently robust to identify and characterise transactions in this area, and to audit and assess taxable events – whether they occur entirely within the blockchain ecosystem or as part of hybrid models involving traditional financial structures.
From a practical standpoint, transactions carried out within the blockchain ecosystem may constitute taxable events under traditional tax principles. This raises the need to define how such operations should be treated for purposes of:
However, neither current legislation nor the tax authority has issued specific criteria to confirm the proper classification, valuation or timing of such events. As a result, there is a high degree of legal uncertainty, and taxpayers must rely on analogies with existing regimes when attempting to ensure compliance.
That said, the absence of specific regulation creates legal uncertainty in several key areas, particularly due to the lack of clarity regarding the applicable tax treatment of certain concepts and events. These include:
ESG standards remain voluntary in Mexico, and reporting practices adopted by securities issuers have not yet reached a level that recognises or assesses the impact of blockchain operations or crypto-asset mining activities – despite the widely acknowledged high energy consumption associated with mining.
Likewise, there is insufficient publicly available data to assess the social impact of certain virtual assets that aim to promote financial inclusion or democratisation, such as Bitcoin or Worldcoin.
The blockchain ecosystem operates based on two foundational principles: decentralisation and immutability.
Decentralisation refers to the fact that blockchain systems function through a multiplicity of nodes distributed across different jurisdictions, which prevents any single entity or server from exercising exclusive control over the network.
Immutability means that once data is recorded on the blockchain, it cannot be modified, altered or deleted, given the design and consensus mechanisms that underpin the system.
In contrast, data protection legislation in Mexico seeks to ensure the enforceability of ARCO rights (access, rectification, cancellation and opposition), which – particularly in digital contexts – are closely related to the “right to be forgotten” recognised in other jurisdictions.
Given this framework, a conflict arises between the principles of blockchain and the rights enshrined in personal data protection law. It is materially impossible to enforce the right to be forgotten within the blockchain ecosystem as currently designed. In the view of the authors, personal data recorded on a blockchain cannot be deleted or rectified, not due to a legal limitation, but due to technical impossibility.
One possible mitigation mechanism is pseudonymisation, which results from the use of private keys that do not, by default, reveal the identity of the data subject – except to the parties involved in the underlying transaction. In such cases, an exception regime could be considered, particularly in contractual contexts, where the processing of personal data may be lawful without the need for explicit consent, provided it is necessary for the performance of the contract.
Corporativo Pirámide
Vasco de Quiroga 2121
4to Piso Colonia Peña Blanca Santa Fé
Mexico City
Mexico
01210
+52 55 5257 7000
+52 55 5257 7001
contacto@chevez.com.mx www.chevez.comBlockchain, Value and Taxation: A Legal Proposal for the Protection of Wealth Against Phantom Taxation
“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
— John Maynard Keynes
Since the abandonment of the gold standard, money lost its material anchor, detaching from the notion of real value – the true fruit of labour. Fiat money, backed solely by trust in the issuing authority, became the primary unit of value. While it facilitates the exchange of goods and services, for better or worse, it has also become a vehicle through which states silently expand their fiscal power. The problem is not merely that more is collected, but how, when, and upon what the tax burden falls.
From Gold to Fiat: The Historical, Economic and Political Evolution of Money as a Tool of State Control
The history of money reveals how an instrument born from both the need for exchange and mutual co-operation became a tool of control. Initially, money was a practical solution to the inefficiencies of barter, driven by the need to store, transport or exchange surplus production that could not be preserved in its natural form. Its legitimacy stemmed from its widespread use and acceptance, grounded in written and unwritten conventions – its origin was not the result of formal power.
With the introduction of metal coins, states began to assert control over this economic language. By minting precious metals with sovereign seals, money became not just useful, but a symbol of authority. Whoever controlled the coin, controlled commerce and wealth.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, paper money replaced metal as the dominant means of monetary circulation. Confidence – rather than substance – sustained money. Initially issued by private banks and later by central banks, paper notes were backed by gold until that guarantee, too, was abandoned. The critical turning point came in 1971, with the suspension of the dollar’s convertibility into gold: fiat money in its modern form was born, supported only by trust in its issuer.
From that moment on, money ceased to be an objective store of value and became a flexible instrument serving monetary policy. It is issued to finance public spending, regulate economic cycles or induce inflation. It also serves as a foundation for imposing not always explicit taxes: loss of purchasing power, taxation on unrealised wealth and other forms of invisible taxation.
Taxation Without Law: The Advance of Fiscal Pressure on Preserved Wealth
Contemporary tax systems have evolved far beyond their original function of sustaining public finances. Today, they operate as omnipresent structures that aim to tax not only income and consumption but also savings, appreciation over time, and – frequently – even unrealised economic gain. This expansion has created a series of distortions that directly affect productive assets and circumvent traditional boundaries of legal certainty in taxation.
One of the most notable phenomena is the multiple taxation of the same economic flow. An individual's income can be taxed at origin (income tax), upon use (VAT), during preservation (interest or returns) and again upon transfer (inheritance or donation tax). Each stage may be taxed without acknowledging their common origin: labour.
An even less visible but equally damaging mechanism is inflation-induced taxation – phantom taxation. When fiat money loses value due to monetary policy decisions, the state silently erodes the value of assets individuals intend to preserve. Though not legislated, this depreciation functions as a systematic transfer of wealth without formal legal recognition.
Cryptocurrencies as a Shield for Wealth Preservation
In this context, it is crucial to distinguish between the speculative use of cryptocurrencies and their more stable and legitimate role as a store of value. These assets often serve to preserve wealth accumulated over time – frequently already taxed through one or more stages of the economic cycle – against monetary erosion, regulatory uncertainty or excessive fiscal risk. Viewed from this lens, tax deferral should be recognised not as evasion, but as a rational expression of wealth protection against a system that imposes taxes prematurely or based on suspicion.
Fiscal Latency and Legal Certainty: The Principle of Realisation as a Barrier Against Arbitrary Taxation
The principle of actual realisation has long been a cornerstone of fair taxation. No tax burden should be imposed without a clear, legally verifiable and economically relevant triggering event. In the context of digital assets, this principle takes on special importance: the mere possession of cryptocurrency does not, in itself, constitute taxable income or realised wealth.
This deferral is not only legally valid but is also recognised across numerous areas of tax law. There are well-established precedents involving other assets – such as stocks, real estate and investment funds – where increases in value are not taxed until realisation occurs. In all such cases, the law acknowledges that potential appreciation does not equate to actual enrichment.
Cryptocurrencies should not be viewed primarily as speculative tools – though they may serve such functions in some cases – but rather as modern instruments of value preservation. Many individuals acquire them using previously taxed income, with the intent to protect against inflation, legal uncertainty or currency devaluation.
Autonomous Digital Wealth: A New Legal Category
In patrimonial law, the concept of assets has evolved significantly. From tangible goods to intangible rights, from traditional property to fiduciary instruments, the legal notion of wealth has proven flexible enough to adapt to new economic realities. However, the emergence of crypto-assets raises a question that the law has yet to fully address: are we facing a new form of wealth that warrants its own recognition?
From this perspective, one may speak of autonomous digital wealth: a form of value managed outside the traditional system, but still susceptible to valuation, transfer and preservation. This wealth does not lose legitimacy for lacking formal bank custody, nor for existing outside immediate fiscal frameworks. It is, rather, a natural extension of patrimonial freedom, now exercised within decentralised technological environments.
Smart Investing and Smart Contracts: Programmable Law as a New Fiscal Paradigm
The ability to legally program the conditions under which assets are managed, distributed or transferred represents a fundamental transformation for the law. Smart contracts developed on blockchain are a functional evolution of legal consent, capable of executing without intermediaries, with full traceability and absolute predictability.
This approach enables what we call smart investing: autonomous, transparent, rule-based asset management in which the individual retains full control. Moreover, it opens the door to the concept of smart money: digital value that not only circulates but embeds within it rules for usage, traceability and taxation.
While this chapter has focused on the fiscal and patrimonial analysis of digital assets, a subsequent piece will explore their intrinsic value derived from technical attributes: the ability to be held without intermediaries via non-custodial wallets; the lack of recurring custody costs; the ease of transfer without prior authorisation or formal legal process – even mortis causa; and their use in auto-executing contracts, testamentary dispositions or tax settlements without judicial intervention.
Regulatory Proposal and Legal-Accounting Model for Digital Assets
Given the rapid expansion of digital assets and their growing role as autonomous stores of wealth, it is imperative to develop a regulatory framework that provides legal certainty to both holders and tax authorities. This requires, first, formal recognition of the legitimacy of tax deferral when no economic realisation event – such as conversion, use or disposition – has occurred. It also demands modernising accounting and evidentiary standards, formally recognising blockchain records as valid evidence.
From a legal perspective, immutable records generated on public decentralised networks, properly linked to an identified holder and referring to real transactions, meet the requirements of integrity, verifiability and traceability set out in Mexico’s Financial Reporting Standards (NIF). In particular, records generated by smart contracts or automated events – equipped with hash and timestamp – can offer even greater control than traditional accounting systems, eliminating discretion and reducing errors.
Recognising these records as valid accounting evidence would not disrupt the system but would reflect a natural evolution under the principle of technological neutrality. Mexico’s Commercial Code already acknowledges electronic means for bookkeeping, and its tax regulations have historically accommodated digital transaction validation. Therefore, there is no legal obstacle to allowing taxpayers to report and validate their crypto-wealth through programmable, traceable and verifiable mechanisms.
In parallel, authorities could establish voluntary frameworks for programmed tax compliance, enabling taxpayers to predefine conditions under which digital assets generate tax effects (eg, conversion, withdrawal, transfer). Such schemes – comparable to early withholding or international transparency regimes – could shift tax compliance from audit to shared responsibility, without undermining fairness.
Paradoxically, despite the exponential growth of this technology, no nation has yet taken the clear, normative step of systematically integrating blockchain records into its general tax or accounting regime. A practical starting point could be the creation of a public interface between blockchain-based accounting systems and government tax platforms, such as Mexico’s Tax Administration Service (SAT), enabling automatic verification of relevant transactions – subject to taxpayer authorisation and preservation of non-tax data confidentiality.
This interoperability would enable new forms of voluntary compliance, where smart contracts serve as mechanisms of auto-declaration or programmed withholding, reducing litigation and strengthening trust. It would also allow real-time auditable accounting models, enhancing tax oversight efficiency without imposing new formal obligations.
The absence of regulatory action not only ignores the pace at which crypto-assets are gaining ground, but may lead to a short-term loss of regulatory competitiveness compared to more agile jurisdictions. Mexico, with its innovation-oriented legal foundation, could become a global pioneer by demonstrating that fiscal sovereignty is not incompatible with decentralisation, and that compliance can be built on structured trust, not just enforcement.
Conclusions
Blockchain technologies and crypto-assets are not only compatible with tax law; they offer a historic opportunity to rethink the relationship between the taxpayer and the state through efficiency, autonomy and legality. Rather than persisting with suspicion-based enforcement models, this proposal is based on the recognition of legitimately acquired and preserved wealth managed through advanced technological tools.
Within this framework, tax deferral should not be perceived as evasion, but rather as a legitimate response to fiscal pressure that has exceeded the bounds of equity and legality. Given that many crypto-assets originate from income already taxed, the need arises to treat them not as threats but as modern expressions of labour-derived and saved value.
The integration of blockchain as a verifiable and transparent accounting system reflects a logical evolution of financial and tax law. While no country has yet fully institutionalised this model, the moment calls for leadership. Mexico could emerge as a normative international benchmark by charting a clear path that connects technological innovation, legal principles and shared fiscal responsibility.
Finally, we reserve for future work a deeper analysis of the technical features of crypto-assets that enable non-custodial ownership, near-costless transmission and legal auto-executability, opening new pathways for wealth succession, voluntary compliance and dispute resolution in both tax and civil matters.
Note. This article was fully developed by the author, who defined its legal approach, technical reasoning, and conceptual structure. Editorial assistance based on artificial intelligence tools was employed solely for tasks related to style editing, terminological consistency, and grammatical refinement, without altering the substantive content or analytical framework. The author retained full supervision and final approval of the text.
Corporativo Pirámide
Vasco de Quiroga 2121
4to Piso Colonia Peña Blanca Santa Fé
Mexico City
Mexico
01210
+52 55 5257 7000
+52 55 5257 7001
contacto@chevez.com.mx www.chevez.com