Crypto-asset regulation and tokenization in Chile

In Chile, a business offering a wallet, trading platform or tokenized issuance must identify the services actually provided. Key control matters, but so do receiving pesos, purchasing for customers and holding proceeds from a sale.

The Fintech framework distinguishes registration, authorization and exceptions for specified entities. Architecture decisions must be accompanied by legal analysis of each function, without extending a conclusion about one component to the whole product.

How to identify a platform’s regulated services

Law 21,521, the Fintech Law, regulates financial services according to activity and instrument. It defines a crypto-asset as a digital representation of units of value, goods or services, expressly excluding money, whether in national or foreign currency, and distinguishes financial instruments within its framework from publicly offered securities governed by their own legislation. Digital form does not remove this distinction, nor does registering the provider turn every token issuance into an authorized activity.

CMF Opinion 101082 of 12 June 2026 confirms that crypto-assets qualify as financial instruments for the purposes of the Fintech Law, so regulated services can involve them. For the model considered, it also identifies the three services that other functions may trigger: receiving money to acquire crypto-assets on behalf of third parties would amount to intermediation of financial instruments; receiving the proceeds of their sale, to custody; and operating a trading platform in Chile could constitute an alternative trading system.

That opinion is best read together with the one it qualifies. In Opinion 82,382 of 9 July 2024, the CMF had concluded that an entity providing a wallet service within a model of buying and selling crypto-assets on users' behalf does perform custody, regardless of any mechanisms preventing it from transferring them: there, the provider received pesos, acquired the assets and deposited them in a wallet registered by the user, retaining what the Commission calls functional holding.

The distinguishing facts are set out in detail: in the 2026 case the user generates and keeps the private keys and seed phrase on their own device, the provider neither receives them nor can reconstruct them, no technical mechanism allows it to sign on the user's behalf, and the user can export the seed phrase and access the assets from any other compatible interface. Before relying on the favorable conclusion, it is advisable to check that all four circumstances are present.

Which authority supervises each activity

The Financial Market Commission, CMF, administers the Financial Services Providers Register, FSPR, and authorizes covered services. The Central Bank acts within its monetary and payment responsibilities; the Financial Analysis Unit, UAF, supervises anti-money laundering compliance. The Fintech Law allocates these responsibilities without creating a single license for every blockchain business.

General Rule 559, effective from 9 February 2026, governs prior notification by specified already-supervised entities permitted to offer identified services without new FSPR registration. Its treatment of banks reserves certain services to specific rules. This condition establishes neither a general prohibition on digital financial services nor automatic bank authorization.

Which permission the business model requires

The CMF distinguishes registration from authorization: applying for or obtaining registration does not itself permit all services. The application must identify activities and meet their requirements. New operators cannot automatically rely on transitional provisions intended for providers already operating when the regime began.

Section I.C of consolidated General Rule 502 contains specific exceptions. Certain overseas entities may apply for registration without Chilean domicile when serving exclusively qualified investors and meeting the prescribed background and declaration conditions. Limited corporate-purpose and authorization exceptions also exist; none generally removes registration or establishes unrestricted cross-border retail access.

For covered traditional entities, General Rule 559 requires identification of services before commencement. Carey's analysis explains the distinction from the ordinary procedure and the transitional notification deadline, which expired on 30 April 2026. Notification by an entity already empowered by law is not an abbreviated licensing route for every new platform.

How holder rights are documented

CMF Opinion 87237 of 20 May 2026 examines custody of digitally represented assets by the Central Securities Depository. It confirms that Law 18,876 applies to that entity and its responsibility for the authenticity and integrity of the digital asset held, distinguishing this from responsibility for underlying assets backing the issuance.

A tokenized issuance must therefore distinguish the asset held in custody, its represented right and the underlying property or receivable. Token custody alone does not establish ownership of real estate or its registered conveyance. The opinion addresses an identified case; it does not approve every token, issuer, network or platform.

Which obligations continue during operations

General Rule 502 establishes disclosure, governance, risk, security, continuity and recordkeeping duties according to service and scale. Capital and guarantees follow the applicable rules; there is no universal figure for every blockchain company. Prudential provisions distinguish crypto-asset exposures and netting conditions, without guaranteeing an asset's solvency through that classification.

UAF Circular 62 consolidates registration, compliance-officer, diligence, beneficial-ownership, retention and reporting requirements. It applies from June 2025, with electronic funds and asset transfer instructions applying to Fintech providers from July that year. Originator, beneficiary and participant rules must be assessed for the transaction; preventive registration is distinct from CMF authorization.

What to prepare before launching the project

Document who generates, keeps and can recover keys and who receives money at each on-ramp or off-ramp. Check those functions against provider registration and authorization and third-party permissions.

For issuance, identify the instrument, underlying right and custodian responsibility. CMF opinions help interpret specific models; explain differences in your project before relying on their conclusions.

Each provider's current authorizations, any exception and instrument-specific formalities require verification. No general sandbox or automatic DLT securities recognition is asserted without a retrieved rule. The index distinguishes licensable services from the validity of every issuance and unrestricted international access.

To understand how this framework applies to your project, discuss your case with our team.