Chile has undergone a significant transformation. In a decisive runoff on Dec. 14, José Antonio Kast, a conservative former congressman and leader of the Republican Party, secured the presidency with around 58% of the votes against leftist Jeannette Jara.
This marks the most pronounced rightward shift in Chile since the reestablishment of democracy. Financial markets interpreted this as a sign of deregulation, with the peso and equities strengthening on expectations of relaxed labor laws, reduced corporate taxes, and a focus on law and order to tackle crime and migration issues that dominated the campaign.
Kast’s journey to La Moneda was fueled by public concerns regarding security and stagnant economic growth. His campaign combined a promise to “restore order” with a commitment to boost private investment, especially in the copper sector.
He also softened the tone of previous campaigns to attract center-right voters in a divided Congress. Though the immediate post-election message emphasized unity, the political landscape suggests a focus on incremental change.
Still, Kast campaigned in a regional context of leaders who have built their brands on security and deregulation. He frequently referenced El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele as a model for addressing crime, and his comparisons to “tough on crime” governance resonated with Chileans frustrated by organized crime and migration challenges.
Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, met with Kast in Buenos Aires shortly after the election, symbolizing ideological alignment across the Andes. However, both leaders face unique challenges in their respective countries.
This political backdrop raises an intriguing question: does a rightward shift position Chile on a path akin to Bukele’s for Bitcoin?
The concise answer from Chile’s institutional and market framework is no. The longer response reveals more interesting and globally relevant nuances.
Chile is not El Salvador—and that’s significant
The comparison to El Salvador is tempting. In 2021, President Nayib Bukele made Bitcoin legal tender, a pioneering political move that continues to attract attention.
Regardless of its outcomes, the decision was assertive and symbolic. Chile’s approach is likely to be more grassroots and technocratic, influenced primarily by legal and technical constraints rather than political theatrics.
Three key factors differentiate Chile. First, the central bank (BCCh) has been focused on avoiding crypto theatrics.
It has released measured CBDC analyses and implemented the Fintech Act’s open-finance framework alongside the Financial Market Commission (CMF). This kind of engagement indicates caution rather than sudden decisions like adopting crypto as legal tender.
Second, the pension system dominates the local financial landscape. By the end of 2024, Chile’s pension funds were reported to hold $186.4 billion.
By mid-2025, this figure soared above $207 billion, reaching approximately $229.6 billion by October.
That’s $229.6 billion in assets that will only evolve when governance, risk, custody, and valuation requirements are met. This is a system that integrates new asset classes through regulated frameworks rather than presidential proclamations.
Third, Chilean tax regulations already classify crypto as an income-taxable asset. This reinforces the notion that adoption will proceed through formal intermediaries (brokers, funds, banks) instead of mandates at the checkout.
This sets the macroeconomic context. It’s also why Mauricio Di Bartolomeo, co-founder and CSO of Bitcoin lender Ledn, believes Chile’s “crypto moment” won’t resemble El Salvador’s or Argentina’s.
“I believe it is unlikely that the Chilean Central Bank and the new government will make Bitcoin legal tender in the country,” he states.
In his perspective, a more suitable approach would be incremental policies that normalize usage. This could involve de minimis tax relief for small transactions and clear permissions for banks to provide custody and trading services.
The objective is to enable citizens and businesses to hold BTC locally without legal confusion.
Follow the rails: ETFs, bank custody, and (eventually) pensions
So, what will appear first on the ground?
“Local ETF products that allow regulated entities to gain exposure,” Di Bartolomeo suggests, referencing the wave of spot Bitcoin ETFs being adopted abroad as a model.
In the US, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) commenced trading in January 2024, quickly transforming the asset into portfolio-grade exposure for traditional institutions. Chile doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel; it simply needs to adapt it into local frameworks and distribution systems.
The next step involves banking infrastructures. If the central bank and CMF provide clear guidelines for bank-level custody and facilitation, everyday access will follow.
This includes brokerage integration, discretionary portfolio management, collateralized lending, and corporate treasury programs that can hold and hedge assets.
Chile has been careful in developing these structures through the Fintech Act (Law 21,521) and the Open Finance System regulations introduced in mid-2024. This foundation allows banks to expand services without compromising risk controls.
But what about the key issue of pensions (AFPs)? Di Bartolomeo holds a pragmatic view: pensions are governed by strict rules, often preventing direct purchases of international funds or limiting the way they hold assets not based in Chile.
Hence, “jurisdictional opportunities” matter. If international spot ETF units are not accessible, domestic ETFs or ETNs could serve as the bridge needed for AFPs.
Even then, the adoption would start small, constrained by custody standards, valuation methods, risk categories, and tax implications. These are the mundane, make-or-break details that rarely make headlines.
The numbers highlight the stakes. A pension system that ended 2024 with $186.4 billion and continued to grow through 2025 doesn’t need to move much for it to be impactful.
A 25–50 basis point allocation through local wrappers could represent billions in potential inflows over time. However, regulators will want custody segregation, price-source integrity, and assessable liquidity before any movement occurs.
Chile’s position on stablecoins also aligns with this “regulated rails” narrative. Legal analysis this year has shown how the Fintech Law framework can accommodate and channel stablecoin usage into the formal economy.
This careful approach mitigates informal dollarization risks while maintaining monetary control. Expect near-term clarity to enhance retail-grade on-ramps.
Catalysts, deal-killers, and the scoreboard to monitor
If the expectation is that the infrastructure will come first, what could expedite or hinder this? Di Bartolomeo identifies key institutional deal-killers: (1) any central-bank restrictions on domestic BTC transactions, (2) harsh tax implications for BTC investments, and (3) limitations on USD-pegged stablecoin usage.
Each of these factors could push activities overseas or into obscurity, counteracting Chile’s long-standing effort to deepen and formalize its markets.
Conversely, straightforward catalysts include clear guidelines for bank custody, green lights from the securities regulator for local ETFs/ETNs, and transparent compliance paths for distribution.
On the policy scoreboard, progress is already evident. The BCCh has published two CBDC reports (2022 and 2024), demonstrating a central bank that prefers deliberate planning over headline-grabbing experiments.
The CMF is executing a regulatory plan for 2025–26 and has been implementing Open Finance rules since 2024. This legal groundwork facilitates secure, interoperable data-sharing and, consequently, the possibility for new products.
None of this suggests a move towards declaring Bitcoin as “legal tender.”
And politically? Kast’s election, welcomed by regional conservatives and soon followed by an initial meeting with Argentina’s libertarian president Javier Milei, establishes a deregulating atmosphere.
Yet the Chilean system still channels change through its institutions. Markets responded positively to the election outcome, Congress remains divided, and the initial hundred days will hinge on what the government can navigate through the regulatory process, rather than initiating sweeping monetary changes.
For those invested in the future of crypto in Chile, Di Bartolomeo’s predictions will be closely observed. The first indications will likely be filings for local Bitcoin ETFs or ETNs, quickly followed by banks signaling intent with custody and basic trading capabilities.
He emphasizes that this is not about spectacle, but enabling accessible on-ramps:
“A strong signal for broader adoption would be banks offering any Bitcoin-related services or products, or policy discussions around updating banking regulations to allow for this.”
He believes this shift could normalize local holding and transactions without ambiguity. From there, the focus will shift to pensions.
Any circular that expands eligible asset categories, or clarifies valuation and safekeeping standards for digital assets, would pave the way for small, testable allocations within Chile’s largest capital pools, especially if domestic frameworks simplify access.
On the retail and commerce front, narrowly defined tax relief would encourage experimentation without imposing it. Di Bartolomeo cites de minimis-style exemptions for small payments already discussed in the US as a potential model for Chile to adopt, allowing individuals to use and receive bitcoin for transactions.
He also points to stablecoins as a live policy lever:
“I would also monitor policies regarding the usage of USD-pegged stablecoins like Tether, as these are increasingly being utilized as currency in the region,” a path he suggests could eventually steer users toward Bitcoin.
Chile’s crypto future will likely unfold through term sheets, rulebooks, and custody audits rather than grand announcements. This may not be as sensational as El Salvador’s legal tender initiative, but it could pave the way for scalability.
As Di Bartolomeo articulates:
“I don’t see an immediate case for Bitcoin to be used as money in Chile.”
The critical indicator will be bank actions. If this occurs, pension systems can follow—and it won’t take many basis points to create a significant impact.
