Perpetual Futures and Crypto Derivatives in Panama: Beyond Existing Regulatory Categories.
By Joinel Lammie Carvajal on August 12, 2026
Key takeaways
01 Crypto perpetual futures do not fit neatly within Panama’s existing regulatory categories.
02 Absence of specific regulation does not eliminate risk of characterization.
03 Panamanian government has shown growing interest in regulating digital assets and crypto-related products.
The regulatory treatment of derivatives agreement generally depends on the nature of its underlying asset.
Beyond the Label
In June 2026, several crypto platforms refunded customer funds associated with unfilled orders for tokenized SpaceX shares[1] after the tokenization provider was unable to secure sufficient underlying shares. The offering report attracted more than US$1 billion in demand, involving a token, a claimed equity interest, and perpetual future referencing that token’s price. A client asking Panamanian counsel which regime governs such a product – crypto-assets, securities, or commodities – is unlikely to have a single clear answer. Each framework may be relevant to some extent, yet none provides a complete answer.
Does the Securities Market Law Reach a Crypto Perpetual?
Pursuant Decree Law 1 of July 8, 1999, consolidated as a Consolidated Text (in Spanish, “Texto Único”) and published in Official Gazette No. 26979-A of February 9, 2012, defines "valor" (in English “security”) in Article 49, numeral 66, as an open list: bonds, shares, and any other title, instrument, or right commonly recognized as a security, or that the Superintendency determines constitutes one. The Superintendency of the Securities Market (in Spanish, Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores or SMV) therefore holds discretion to pull a novel instrument into that definition, but it has not exercised that discretion over crypto derivatives to date. Article 49, numeral 32, separately broadly defines "instrumento financiero" (in English, “financial instruments”) as any product that confers upon the relevant parties a financial or economic right, equity, or liability. In that regard, Article 193 covers expansively perpetual futures as a form of derivative instrument, including derivatives referencing currencies or precious metals; however, crypto-assets are absent from its illustrative list of underlying assets.
A public offer of a derivative product already has its own place in the Superintendency’s fee schedule, distinct from the security-registration categories in Article 115: Article 25, numeral 3, sets a 0.025% registration fee on such an offer. The category exists; whether a crypto perpetual falls into it remains a question the Superintendency of Market Values has not answered by opinion or acuerdo (in English “agreement”).
The Closest Precedent in Forex Derivatives, Not Commodities
Panama's securities regulator has, in fact, previously considered this same structural question, although in contexts other than digital assets and crypto-related products. Since 2004, the then-National Commission of Securities (in Spanish, Comisión Nacional de Valores, predecessor to the Superintendency of Market Values) issued several opinions on whether buying and selling foreign currency and derivative contracts on that currency required a Casa de Valores license. These opinions developed a relevant distinction: foreign currency is not, by itself, a security under the Securities Market Law[2]. Subsequently, the Commission considered activities involving those derivatives. In Opinion No. 5-2008, it concluded that intermediation in options and futures referencing foreign currencies involved financial instruments and, therefore, required a Casa de Valores license. Opinion No. 1-2009 did not necessarily reverse that conclusion; instead, it clarifies that the legal characterization of the underlying asset does not, by itself, determine whether the derivative constitutes a security. That determination depends on the derivative’s own characteristics including, without limitation, its offering and trading.
The authority behind that case-by-case power sits in Title IX of the Consolidated Text, Articles 193 through 197, which lets the Superintendency of Market Values write rules governing the offer, negotiation, and terms of options, futures contracts, and other derivative instruments. The Forex analogy remains relevant but should be understood narrowly: the fact that an underlying asset is unregulated or does not itself constitute a security does not necessarily prevent a derivative referencing that asset from being regulated. The same reasoning may apply to derivatives referencing crypto-assets. Although cryptocurrencies have not generally been characterized as securities or financial instruments in Panama, this may reduce the risk that derivatives referencing them fall within the securities regime but does not eliminate it. Such derivatives may still independently qualify as financial instrument based on their own contractual, economic, and negotiability characteristics.
A perpetual future referencing crypto that does not involve delivery of the underlying asset is structurally comparable to the non-derivable foreign-exchange contracts previously considered by the Commission. Whether such a product constitutes a regulated financial instrument – and whether related activities require licensing – would similarly depend on its characteristics. In the absence of a determination that the product qualifies as a security or financial instrument, it should not automatically fall within the securities regime; in other words, it may be permissible under Panamanian law, but unregulated. In that sense, the Superintendency of Market Values has not conducted this analysis specifically in connection to crypto derivatives. Moreover, Opinion No. 7-2018 indicates that a Casa de Valores may not treat crypto-related products as activities authorized under its existing license. Consequently, unless and until the Superintendency of Market Values determines otherwise, a licensed Casa de Valores should not offer crypto perpetuals without specific regulatory determination or prior authorization.
Three Years Without a Crypto Law, and the Gap is Widening
Bill 697 of 2021 passed the National Assembly on its third debate in April 2022, was vetoed by then-President Cortizo, and was ultimately declared inexequible in its entirety by the Supreme Court of Justice through Edicto 835 of 14 July 2023. Since 2018, the Superintendency of Banks of Panama (in Spanish, Superintendencia de Bancos or SBP) has warned that crypto assets are neither legal tender nor a classic valor mobiliario, while stating that this activity falls outside its own supervisory competence absent specific legislation. Two successors, Anteproyecto de Ley 314 of 13 January 2026 and Bill 247 of 2025, would create a National Council for Digital Assets and bring virtual-asset service providers under supervision, but neither has been enacted. Offshore platforms meanwhile continue to serve Panama-based traders directly, some offering leverage above 100x on crypto perpetuals and, increasingly, on tokenized-equity perpetuals that sit closer to the securities frame than the crypto one.
What Structuring Counsel Should Confirm Before Advising
Counsel structuring or advising on a crypto derivative offering from or into Panama should first map who the counterparty is, whether an exchange, a market maker, or a liquidity pool, before asking which category its product falls into; the answer to the first question usually narrows the second. Where the relevant product falls within a regulatory grey area, the activity performed revolving said product becomes highly relevant. Only then should the product be tested against each of relevant authorities, and against Panama’s anti-money laundering framework, which may apply independently of classification. Only then should the product be tested against each of the three frames above, and against Panama's anti-money-laundering framework, which applies independently of classification. The most common misstep is treating the absence of a dedicated crypto statute as an absence of any applicable law.
Questions we are asked most often
Is a crypto perpetual future a “security” under Panamanian law?
Not automatically. Article 49's definition is open-ended, and the Superintendency of Market Values has not issued an opinion bringing crypto derivatives within it.
Does Panama have a crypto law in 2026?
No. Bill 697 was declared inexequible in 2023, and its successors, Anteproyecto 314 and Bill 247, remain pending before the National Assembly.
Does trading a crypto perpetual in Panama require a Casa de Valores license?
Not automatically. It would depend on whether the crypto perpetual qualifies as a security or financial instrument – particularly the underlying asset by which the derivative agreement referenced – and whether the trading activity constitutes a regulated intermediation under Panamanian law.
Can a licensed Casa de Valores offer crypto perpetuals to clients today?
No. Under Opinion No. 7-2018, a Casa de Valores may not treat crypto-related products as activities authorized by its existing license, and crypto perpetuals would therefore require a specific regulatory determination and prior authorization from the Superintendency of Market Values.
What this means for you
Derivative agreements – such as perpetual futures – referencing digital assets and other crypto-related products present a particularly complex regulatory question. The absence of a clear framework creates uncertainty regarding the activities and services that may fall within the regulatory perimeter. Accordingly, businesses should structure their models carefully, understanding the permissibility of the services and operational activities involving perpetual futures referencing crypto-related assets, but assessing the relevant characterization and licensing risks, and remain attentive to regulatory developments in this subject.
For advice on how this applies to your entity, contact us at info@pacifica.legal.
[1] BigGo Finance, “Crypto Exchanges Refund SpaceX IPO Subscribers After xStocks Fails to Deliver Shares”, BigGo Finance, June 12, 2026, available at: https://finance.biggo.com/news/aNsevp4Bynwp6uImab3M
[2] Opinion No. 5-2004, dated May 05, 2004, issued by the Comisión Nacional de Valores (now the Superintendency of Market Values).