Blockchain 2025 Comparisons

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:

• recognition of income for tax purposes (eg, increase in net worth);
• potential applicability of VAT; and
• compliance with anti-money laundering regulations, particularly when the use of virtual assets occurs in connection with activities classified as “vulnerable” operations under the relevant AML legislation.

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.

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:

• AML/CTF obligations, where virtual assets are used in connection with so-called “vulnerable activities” under anti-money laundering legislation;
• tax audits, where undeclared income or economic benefits derived from blockchain transactions are identified by the tax authority; and
• consumer protection proceedings, particularly where platforms offering unregulated services engage in misleading or insufficiently transparent advertising.

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:

• income tax (ISR) – when income is derived from the sale or exchange of tokens or other virtual assets;
• VAT – where services enabling the transfer or exchange of virtual assets could be construed as taxable supplies; and
• withholding obligations – in cases where platforms act as intermediaries facilitating the supply and demand of goods or services, and are therefore required to withhold the corresponding taxes.

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:

• the classification and valuation of virtual assets;
• the tax effects of cross-border operations, including those initiated or settled outside Mexican territory;
• the criteria for recognising deductible losses arising from price volatility or token devaluation; and
• other technical aspects not yet addressed by binding tax guidance.

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.