Blockchain & Crypto-Assets 2026 Comparisons

Blockchain-related projects are increasingly viewing Panama as a jurisdiction where they can innovate in a legal environment that is not yet specifically regulated. In practice, this means using existing corporate, commercial, tax, intellectual property, and compliance frameworks to structure operations while the country continues to consider a dedicated virtual assets regime.

Over the past 12 months, market practice has become more sophisticated. Projects are no longer focused only on whether a token can be issued from Panama. They are now looking at how a Panamanian structure can support a platform front end, hold and manage treasury assets, own and license intellectual property, contract with development companies, document service arrangements, and interact with users, exchanges, banks, neobanks, and local or offshore service providers.

The most common use cases currently being evaluated include real-world asset tokenisation, platform front ends, protocol treasuries, intellectual property holding and licensing structures, prediction markets, and vault management structures, including models through which institutional players interact with decentralised finance.

A structure increasingly seen in practice uses a Panamanian private interest foundation as the top vehicle for treasury, and governance-sensitive assets, as well as intellectual property, with Panamanian corporations acting as token issuers and platform or front-end operators. A separate development company then builds and maintains the technology under a development or services agreement. This model allows the foundation to hold treasury and intellectual property assets, while the operating companies and developers perform commercial functions.

A notable recent development is the entry of more specialised service providers with real operational capacity, including legal, accounting, corporate administration, compliance, anti-money laundering, treasury support, banking co-ordination, and technical development providers. This has also encouraged a move away from purely nominee director-based governance. The use of independent directors with experience in blockchain, financial technology, treasury, compliance, and cross-border platform risk has expanded, helping to strengthen decision-making, banking credibility, economic substance, board records, risk oversight, and regulatory defensibility.

The main issues likely to affect blockchain use in Panama over the next 12 months are uncertainty over the future regulation of virtual asset service providers (VASPs) and the implementation of Panama’s new economic substance regime under Law No 526 of 28 May 2026, “which modifies and adds provisions to the Tax Code relating to income tax and economic substance for certain foreign-source passive income”. Law 526 applies to entities incorporated or domiciled in Panama that form part of a multinational group and obtain foreign-source passive income, including dividends, interest, royalties, capital gains, real estate capital income and other movable-capital income. For blockchain structures, this may affect holding, treasury, intellectual-property, licensing, token-rights and foundation/SPV arrangements where Panama is used to receive or manage passive foreign-source income but the structure lacks adequate local substance, including qualified human resources, premises, local strategic decision-making, risk assumption, operational expenses, governance records, service-provider oversight and Panama-based management or control. Non-compliant entities may be treated as non-qualified entities and, exceptionally, become subject to a 15% tax on net taxable foreign-source passive income.

On the securities side, the Superintendency of the Securities Market (Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores, or SMV) continues to take a fact-specific approach. The relevant question is not whether blockchain is used, but whether the activity involves a security, public offering, intermediation, custody, investment management, brokerage, advisory service, or other regulated securities-market activity. The latest relevant development is SMV Opinion No 01-26 of 29 April 2026 on prediction markets, where the SMV concluded, on the facts presented, that platforms allowing the negotiation of contracts based on future event outcomes did not fall within the Panamanian securities-market regime and did not require licensing, registration, or authorisation before the SMV.

Panama’s blockchain market is moving from incorporation-driven structuring to local governance-driven structuring. The strongest projects are combining flexible Panamanian entities with real directors, capable service providers, treasury controls, intellectual property assignments, development agreements, accounting records, and a clear regulatory analysis.

There is currently no formal regulatory sandbox in Panama for blockchain-based projects, meaning there is no official test environment where crypto, blockchain, or virtual-asset businesses can operate under regulatory supervision with temporary exemptions from licensing, registration, or compliance requirements.

In its 2018 position on cryptocurrencies, the SMV indicated that virtual assets were not, at that time, treated as securities, money, or electronic currency under Panamanian securities regulation, and that a crypto exchange platform, on the facts presented, did not require notification to or licensing by the SMV.

Other regulators have taken a similar perimeter-based position. The Superintendency of Banks of Panama (Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá, or SBP), has stated that cryptocurrency exchange, investment, and commercialisation activities are not specifically regulated and do not fall within its regulatory competence, while reminding supervised banks to apply due diligence controls and manage the risks of misuse of their platforms.

Likewise, the Superintendency of Non-Financial Subjects (SSNF) does not regulate crypto companies merely because they are crypto-related. Its role is to supervise specific non-financial obligated subjects under Panama’s anti-money laundering framework, such as casinos, real estate businesses, precious metals dealers, certain professional services, and other listed sectors. A blockchain company would therefore generally fall outside the SSNF’s scope unless its actual business also fits into one of those supervised categories.

Panama’s approach to blockchain is open. The government has not prohibited blockchain-based businesses, and regulators generally do not treat blockchain as regulated simply because it uses blockchain. This means that non-custodial interfaces, software development, protocol front ends, real-world asset structuring, and intellectual property holding are generally more workable, provided they do not cross into a regulated activity. By contrast, higher-risk use cases include custody, brokerage, investment advice, public offerings to persons domiciled in Panama, banking, remittance, payment services, gambling or betting, and securities or financial instruments activity conducted “in or from Panama”.

The SMV has taken this functional approach in its opinions on crypto-assets, indicating that cryptocurrencies are not automatically securities, money, or electronic currency under current Panamanian law. The SBP has similarly stated that cryptocurrency exchange, investment, purchase, sale, and commercialisation activities are not specifically regulated and fall outside its direct supervisory scope, while reminding banks to manage related risks.

The current position is therefore not one of aggressive promotion or outright restriction. Panama allows lawful innovation, but projects must remain within the limits of existing banking, securities, anti-money laundering, tax, gambling, consumer protection, data privacy, and commercial laws. The recent SMV opinion on prediction markets is a good example: the SMV concluded, on the facts presented, that certain event-contract platforms did not fall within the Panamanian securities-market regime, but that does not amount to clearance from gambling regulators.

Panama does not use the term “right to be forgotten” in the same technical sense as the European General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. However, Panamanian law recognises rights that may produce a similar practical effect, including access, rectification, cancellation, opposition, and portability. The National Authority for Transparency and Access to Information, or ANTAI, is the authority responsible for data protection matters and receives complaints related to access, rectification, cancellation, and opposition rights.

This is not limited to blockchain; these rights can apply across all sectors. However, cancellation is not absolute. A company may need to retain data when there is a legal, contractual, regulatory, tax, accounting, employment, anti-money laundering, or litigation-related basis for doing so.

Smart contracts should be enforceable in Panama, but this has not yet been meaningfully tested before Panamanian courts. There is no reported Panamanian case law directly deciding whether, or how, a smart contract is enforceable. The analysis is therefore based on ordinary contract law, electronic commerce rules, evidence principles, and the way blockchain projects are being documented in practice.

In practice, enforceability usually comes from the legal framework around the smart contract, not from the code alone. Panama-facing blockchain projects typically use the front-end Terms of Use as the primary contractual layer. Those terms should clearly explain what the user is accessing, how the smart contracts operate, what the platform controls and does not control, whether the platform is custodial or non-custodial, what risks the user accepts, and which law and dispute-resolution mechanism applies.

For corporate structures, smart-contract deployment and administration are usually approved and documented privately through board resolutions, foundation council resolutions, bylaws, signer agreements, and development agreements. Where the project uses a multi-signature wallet or multi-signature smart contract, the documents should identify the purpose of the wallet, the signers, the approval threshold, signer appointment and removal mechanics, transaction limits, emergency powers, upgrade rights, and whether signers act as directors, officers, foundation council members, protectors, administrators, contractors, or purely technical signers.

This matters because multi-signature arrangements are not merely technical tools; they are part of the project’s governance and control structure. The deployment of smart contracts, treasury wallets, upgrade keys, protocol permissions, and emergency controls should be backed by written authority.

Under Panamanian law, the basic contract requirements remain consent, a lawful and determinable object, and lawful cause. Law 51 of 2008 also supports electronic contracting by regulating electronic documents, electronic signatures, technological storage, and electronic commerce.

Panama does not currently have a formal self-regulatory organisation for the blockchain industry in the sense of an official body recognised by law or delegated by regulators to supervise market conduct, issue binding rules, discipline members, or replace licensing requirements.

Panama has the Cámara de Comercio Digital y Blockchain, a non-profit association registered in Panama since 2018, whose stated purpose is to promote disruptive digital innovation and develop technology ecosystems. It describes its work as supporting the adoption of blockchain and cryptocurrencies through regulatory, technological, and academic analysis.

Panama does not yet have a statute that expressly says that crypto-assets are “property”, “money”, “securities”, or a separate class of digital assets. The better legal view, however, is that crypto-assets can be treated as intangible movable property because they possess economic value, control, and transferability.

This conclusion is based on the general property rules of the Panamanian Civil Code. Article 324 provides that all things that are, or may be, subject to appropriation are considered property, either movable or immovable. Article 326 defines movable property broadly as appropriable property not classified as immovable, and Article 327 also treats rights, obligations, and actions involving sums of money or movable effects as movable property.

That said, this remains an analogical classification, not a settled crypto-specific rule. There is no developed Panamanian court precedent yet confirming exactly how a court would classify crypto-assets in a property dispute. The SMV stated in Opinion 07-2018 that, under current Panamanian law, cryptocurrencies are not, by themselves, securities, money, or electronic currency, but that does not prevent them from being treated as private assets for civil and commercial purposes.

The legal remedies are broadly the same as for other assets: contractual claims, ownership claims, damages, unjust enrichment, fraud claims, injunctive relief, and, where appropriate, criminal complaints. The practical enforcement is different.

In tangible property cases, a court can identify, seize, or deliver the physical asset. With crypto-assets, the key issue is control. Evidence will usually include wallet addresses, private-key control, multi-signature authority, custody records, transaction hashes, blockchain analytics, exchange records, corporate approvals, and contractual documents.

The Civil Code allows movable and immovable property to be reclaimed through ownership actions; Article 583 provides that movable and immovable property may be re-vindicated, while Article 450 states that possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title, subject to the right of a person who lost the movable property or was unlawfully deprived of it to reclaim it. In the context of crypto-assets, a court would likely focus on who has lawful title or contractual entitlements and who has practical control over the wallet, account, or keys.

Enforcement is much easier when a custodian, an exchange, an escrow agent, a trust, or a similar entity holds assets. It is harder where assets are fully self-custodied and have already been moved beyond the defendant’s control.

Panama has no crypto-specific rule for when ownership of crypto-assets transfers. In practice, a transfer should be determined by the parties’ agreement and the transfer of control.

For ordinary contracts, Article 1109 of the Civil Code provides that contracts are perfected by consent and bind the parties not only to what is expressly agreed but also to consequences arising from good faith, usage, and law. Article 1112 requires consent, a certain object, and a cause of obligation, and Article 1113 provides that consent is formed by offer and acceptance.

For sales, Article 1215 defines a sale as a contract in which one party undertakes to deliver a determinate thing and the other party pays a certain price in money or a sign representing money. Delivery rules are also relevant: Article 1232 treats delivery as placing the thing in the buyer’s power and possession; Article 1233 deals with delivery of movable property; and Article 1234 provides that, for incorporeal property, delivery may occur by placing title documents in the buyer’s power or by allowing the buyer to exercise the right with the seller’s consent.

For self-custodied crypto-assets, the cleanest position is that transfer occurs when the asset is moved on-chain to the recipient’s wallet, or when the recipient otherwise obtains exclusive control, subject to the parties’ agreed confirmation standard. For custodied crypto-assets, transfer may occur by book entry or account credit under the custodian’s terms, though this may create a contractual claim against the custodian rather than direct possession of the asset.

The contract should clearly specify when the transfer occurs: upon smart-contract execution, after a specified number of confirmations, upon credit to a custodial account, or upon release from escrow or multisignature control. It should also address failed transactions, mistaken transfers, forks, chain reorganisations, compromised keys, and sanctioned wallet addresses.

For tokenised real-world assets, the token and the underlying asset must be separated. Transferring a token does not automatically transfer legal title to real estate, shares, intellectual property, or other registered assets if Panamanian law requires a public deed, endorsement, assignment, registration, or other formality.

Crypto-assets can be used as collateral in Panama, but the arrangement must be carefully documented because there is no dedicated digital-asset security regime.

The traditional civil-law tool is the pledge. Under Article 1548 of the Civil Code, a pledge or mortgage must secure a principal obligation, the pledged or mortgaged asset must belong to the grantor, and the grantor must have authority to dispose of it. Article 1554 requires delivery of possession of the pledged asset to the creditor or to an agreed third party, and Article 1555 allows movable assets in commerce to be pledged if they are susceptible to possession.

For crypto-assets, the unresolved question is what “possession” means. The most defensible practical answer is control: transfer to a collateral wallet, a third-party custodian, an escrow wallet, or a multi-signature wallet with agreed signing thresholds. This has not yet been tested in reported Panamanian litigation, so the documents should be very clear on who controls the wallet, who can move the assets, when liquidation is allowed, how valuation is calculated, and what happens if keys are lost or compromised.

Panama also has a modern movable security framework under Law 129 of 2013, which regulates the movable asset mortgage. The law defines this as a real right over movable assets or rights. It allows security to be created over specific movable assets, generic categories of movable assets, or all present or future movable assets of a person, including corporeal or incorporeal assets with determined or determinable value. This may be useful by analogy for crypto-assets, but there may be practical registry issues because the system was not designed specifically for native crypto-assets.

A creditor should also avoid simple appropriation of the collateral. Under Article 1549, pledged or mortgaged assets may be sold to satisfy the debt once the principal obligation is due, and Article 1550 states that the creditor may not appropriate or freely dispose of the pledged or mortgaged assets. For crypto-collateral, liquidation mechanics should therefore be drafted as enforcement or sale procedures, not as an unrestricted right for the creditor to take the assets.

There is no Panama-specific rule that prohibits crypto-asset businesses from using banks, payment processors, neobanks, or other payment partners simply because they are crypto-related. The issue is mainly practical and risk-based, not a formal statutory ban.

Panama does not yet have a dedicated Virtual Asset Service Provider, or VASP, regime. The SBP has stated that activities involving the exchange, investment, purchase, sale or commercialisation of cryptocurrencies are not specifically regulated in Panama and fall outside its direct supervisory scope, while reminding regulated banks to apply due diligence and risk controls to prevent misuse of their services.

Market practice has also become more open. Some local banks have started accepting crypto-related clients and offering crypto-adjacent services. Towerbank, for example, publicly markets crypto-friendly banking services, including crypto-to-dollar and dollar-to-crypto conversions, debit card use, and dollar loans collateralised by Bitcoin. In addition, Caja de Ahorros, a state-owned Panamanian bank, has publicly confirmed plans to enter the Bitcoin space by allowing accounts connected to Bitcoin activity and dollar transactions. However, the precise mechanics and launch conditions should be verified once formally implemented.

At present, there is no separate crypto-specific banking licence or additional authorisation in Panama simply because a bank or payment partner services crypto-related clients or supports fiat off-ramping. The relevant question is whether the partner is already properly authorised for its underlying activity, such as banking, remittance, payment processing, acquiring, custody, foreign exchange, securities, or investment services. A Panamanian bank remains regulated by the SBP, and a money remittance business must be authorised under the applicable remittance rules.

International banks, neobanks and payment platforms also increasingly accept Panamanian entities as clients.

Accordingly, there is no general legal prohibition on crypto-asset businesses obtaining banking or payment services in Panama. Access is improving, but approval remains case-by-case.

No ESG or sustainable finance requirement applies to digital assets as a category in Panama, but ESG disclosure may become relevant where the project is a regulated issuer, a listed or publicly offered product, a sustainable or thematic financing, or a company subject to sustainability-related financial reporting.

Panama has not updated its tax regime specifically to address blockchain or digital assets. There is no crypto-specific income tax, capital gains tax, mining tax, staking tax, token issuance tax, or special tax classification for digital assets. The analysis is still made under Panama’s ordinary tax rules, especially the territorial income tax system.

The key rule remains Article 694 of the Fiscal Code, which provides that Panama taxes income derived from any source within its territory, regardless of where it is received. The same provision also states that certain activities, such as directing, from a Panama office, transactions that are perfected, consummated, or have effects abroad, are not considered Panama-source income. The general corporate income tax rate for legal entities is 25% on taxable net income, according to the Dirección General de Ingresos.

In practical terms, this means that a blockchain or crypto business is not taxed simply because it uses digital assets. The key question is where the income is generated and what the activity is. A Panamanian company carrying out all commercial operations outside Panama, with no Panama-source income, may generally fall outside Panama income tax, subject to proper documentation and source analysis. Your entity guidance follows the same approach: offshore entities generally pay the annual franchise tax and must maintain accounting records, but foreign-source income is generally outside Panama income tax, where the operations, customers, and income source are outside Panama.

Panama has not adopted a special winding-up, resolution or insolvency regime for blockchain-based businesses or digital-asset firms. There is no crypto-specific equivalent of a bank resolution regime, client-asset insolvency regime or VASP insolvency framework. In practice, a blockchain company incorporated or operating in Panama would be handled under the ordinary insolvency rules, unless it is also a regulated bank, insurer, securities-market entity or another entity subject to a special intervention or liquidation regime.

The main law is Law 12 of 2016, which governs insolvency proceedings in Panama. It applies to commercial individuals and commercial companies, whether or not registered with the Public Registry, that have a commercial domicile, branch, agency or establishment in Panama. The law is built around two main routes: reorganisation, where the aim is to preserve a viable business, and judicial liquidation, where the aim is an orderly sale or realisation of the debtor’s assets for distribution to creditors.

For a blockchain company, the key practical question would be what assets actually belong to the debtor. Treasury crypto-assets, token holdings, receivables, intellectual property, software, domain names, smart-contract administration rights, exchange accounts and fiat balances would generally need to be identified and brought into the insolvency estate. If the business is non-custodial and user assets remain in users’ own wallets, those assets should not ordinarily form part of the debtor’s estate. If, however, the company holds client assets through omnibus wallets, exchange accounts, smart contracts, custodians or multi-signature wallets, the analysis becomes much more sensitive and will depend on the terms of use, custody terms, segregation of assets, accounting records and actual control.

Law 12 is not written for digital assets, so enforcement is practical as much as legal. An insolvency representative would need access to wallet records, private-key arrangements, multi-signature signer information, custody agreements, exchange statements, transaction hashes, treasury reports and accounting records. This is why blockchain businesses using Panamanian entities should maintain clear internal records showing which wallets belong to the company, which wallets hold client or third-party assets, who controls each wallet, what approvals are required to move assets, and whether any assets are pledged, escrowed or otherwise encumbered.

During a reorganisation, Panama law provides financial protection that generally prevents new executions, enforcement actions, restitution claims or similar proceedings against the debtor while the protection is in force. It also restricts unilateral termination or acceleration of contracts merely because the debtor entered reorganisation, and enforcement of real or fiduciary guarantees may be suspended unless the court authorises continuation. For a blockchain business, this could affect creditors seeking to enforce against crypto treasury assets, collateral wallets, platform receivables or other company assets, although automatic on-chain liquidation mechanics may create practical issues if not properly suspended or controlled.

In liquidation, the proceeding may be requested by the debtor, a creditor or a foreign insolvency representative. Grounds include cessation of payment of an obligation recorded in an enforceable title, multiple executions without sufficient assets, abandonment or closure of the business, or other legal grounds. A debtor requesting liquidation must provide, among other things, a list of assets and their location, encumbrances, pending proceedings, debts, audited financial statements, interim financial statements and accounting records. For a digital-asset company, that filing should include a crypto-specific asset schedule: wallet addresses, custodians, exchanges, token positions, stablecoins, smart-contract rights, locked or vested assets, and any treasury or collateral arrangements.

There are also governance consequences. Directors, officers, managers and legal representatives generally remain relevant during liquidation, and the Public Registry may restrict resignations or removals until replacements are registered. Law 12 also allows liability actions against directors, officers, managers, legal representatives, auditors or liquidators, and the court may order precautionary attachment of their assets where there is a grounded possibility of negligent or fraudulent conduct against creditors. In a blockchain context, this makes proper treasury governance, multi-signature controls, board approvals and transaction records especially important.

Cross-border issues are likely to be central because many blockchain businesses have users, founders, servers, service providers, custodians and assets outside Panama. Law 12 contains cross-border insolvency provisions, including access for foreign representatives and foreign creditors, co-operation with foreign courts, and co-ordination where foreign and Panamanian proceedings run in parallel. This can be useful, but crypto assets create added complexity because wallet control, exchange custody and smart-contract permissions may sit outside Panama even when the debtor is a Panamanian entity.

Panama does not currently have a formal self-regulatory organisation for the crypto-asset industry in the sense of an official body recognised by law or delegated by regulators to issue binding rules, supervise conduct, discipline members, or provide regulatory safe harbour.

There is the Cámara de Comercio Digital y Blockchain, a non-profit association registered in Panama since 2018, whose purpose is to promote digital innovation and technology ecosystems, including blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Its role is mainly educational and promotional: supporting adoption, discussing regulatory and technological needs, creating networks, and participating in policy conversations.

Panama does not currently make a statutory distinction between fiat-backed stablecoins and algorithmic stablecoins. There is no dedicated stablecoin law, e-money token regime, or regulatory classification that separately defines “algorithmic stablecoins” under Panamanian law.

Fiat-backed stablecoins are not specifically regulated in Panama.

Panama does not currently impose specific backing-asset requirements for fiat-backed stablecoins. There is no stablecoin statute requiring 1:1 reserves, minimum reserve composition, segregation, qualified custodians, audit reports, redemption windows, reserve attestations, capital buffers or restrictions on where reserve assets must be held.

This means there is also no Panama-specific rule requiring backing assets to be held in Panama, in a Panamanian bank, in cash only, in government securities only, or with a regulated custodian. Reserve composition is currently a matter of contract, disclosure and risk management, unless the structure falls into another regulated category.

Panama does not currently have special rules for stablecoins that may be considered systemically important. There is no bespoke stablecoin regime, no formal “systemic stablecoin” designation, and no crypto-specific requirements for capital, liquidity, reserve composition, redemption rights, recovery planning, wind-down planning, stress testing or regulatory approval of reserve custodians.