The radical mathematics of Bitcoin adoption in Chile: how $229 billion changes the calculation

While international observers scrutinize the new Chilean administration for signs of a libertarian shift similar to Bukele, the true weight guiding the future of cryptocurrencies in the South American country lies in a very different number: $229.6 billion. This is not a government budget or a monetary reserve. It is the value accumulated in Chilean pension funds, a critical mass representing the real radical mathematics behind Bitcoin adoption’s future.

The Chilean political scene has moved quickly. By the end of 2025, José Antonio Kast, a former conservative deputy and leader of the Republican Party, won the presidency with about 58% of the vote in a decisive runoff against leftist candidate Jeannette Jara. This was seen as the most right-leaning turn since the return to democracy in the country. Markets greeted it as a sign of deregulation: the peso strengthened, stocks gained, and analysts predicted more flexible labor rules, lower corporate taxes, and a push for public order. Kast built his campaign around security and stagnant growth, even invoking El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele as a model in the fight against crime.

But here’s the radical element that no one discusses enough: the structural constraint posed by the pension system is exactly the opposite of a sudden legal course correction.

Why Chile’s path is not El Salvador—and the numbers prove it

It’s natural to draw a parallel with El Salvador. In 2021, President Nayib Bukele made Bitcoin legal tender by decree—a political statement that remains extraordinary. It was a top-down, symbolic, and swift decision.

Chile’s path will be radically different: not political, but technocratic; not from the top down, but from the bottom up; not sudden, but incremental. Three structural elements make this divergence inevitable.

First, the Chilean Central Bank (BCCh) in recent years has shown little enthusiasm for improvisation. It published sober reports on central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) in 2022 and 2024, both characterized by methodological caution. Simultaneously, it implemented, together with the Financial Market Commission (CMF), the open finance regime under the Fintech Law (Law 21,521), a legal framework designed to enable controlled innovation.

Second, the Chilean tax system already classifies cryptocurrencies as assets subject to ordinary income tax. This means adoption will occur through formal intermediaries—brokers, banks, funds—not via presidential decree.

But the third element is the most radical of all: the numbers of the pension system itself.

The real mathematical constraint: $229.6 billion in assets with strict rules

Chilean pension fund assets have followed a steady trajectory in recent years. At the end of 2024, assets reached $186.4 billion. During 2025, that figure rose above $207 billion, then touched approximately $229.6 billion. It’s not just growth; it’s the critical size of the system absorbing capital in Chile.

However, here lies the radical mathematical calculation: $229.6 billion only moves when strict requirements for governance, risk management, custody, and valuation are met. It’s not about liquidity. It’s about an ecosystem that integrates new asset classes solely through regulated channels, with embedded checks and segregation of custody at every stage. This is the structural constraint that shifts demand from politics to financial engineering.

As Mauricio Di Bartolomeo, co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer of Bitcoin lender Ledn, emphasizes, Chile’s “crypto moment” will not resemble El Salvador or Argentina. “It’s unlikely that the Chilean Central Bank and the new government will attempt to make Bitcoin legal tender,” Di Bartolomeo notes. The realistic path is an incremental evolution that normalizes access through formal channels.

The infrastructural path: ETFs, banks, and finally the pension system

If politics is a road, infrastructure is the real engine. Di Bartolomeo foresees a testable sequence of signals.

The first should manifest through local ETF products. International experience provides the model: when BlackRock launched the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) in the U.S. in January 2024, it quickly transformed Bitcoin into a legitimate institutional exposure. Chile doesn’t need to invent anything; it needs to localize and adapt.

From there, the critical facilitator is the banking system. If the central bank and the CMF establish a clear regulatory framework for custody and banking intermediation, everyday access will follow naturally. This includes integration with brokers, discretionary wallets, collateralized loans, and corporate treasury programs. Chile laid the groundwork with the Fintech Law and the open finance regulation issued mid-2024. This structure allows banks to extend services without compromising risk oversight.

But what is the true game-changer? The pension funds. And here, mathematics becomes radical in the sense that it transforms the entire equation.

AFP (pension fund) operators operate under strict constraints: they often cannot directly purchase international funds, and their ability to hold non-domiciled assets is limited. For this reason, shares of domestic ETFs or ETNs could be the decisive bridge. If an ETF or ETN on Bitcoin were registered locally and met custody, valuation, and risk standards, then the pension system would have a legitimate channel.

Numbers illustrate the stakes. Even a minimal increase in exposure—say between 25 and 50 basis points—would represent billions of dollars in potential flows over time. But it also means regulators will want segregated custody, verifiable price determination, and verified liquidity before moving even the first basis point.

Stablecoins as a formal catalyst

Chile’s stance on stablecoins fits within this same regulatory infrastructure thesis. Recent legal analyses have highlighted how the Fintech Law framework can recognize and channel stablecoin use into the formal system. It’s a prudent approach that reduces risks of informal dollarization while preserving monetary control.

It’s plausible that short-term regulatory clarity will accelerate retail access channels. Dollar-pegged stablecoins, like Tether, are already increasingly used as a medium of exchange in the region. A Chilean framework could formalize this phenomenon without ceding control.

Signals to watch: obstacles and catalysts

According to Di Bartolomeo, the main institutional obstacles remain: (1) restrictions by the central bank on domestic Bitcoin buying and selling, (2) punitive tax treatment for Bitcoin investments, (3) limitations on stablecoin use. Each of these behaviors would push activity abroad or into informal channels, the exact opposite of Chile’s decade-long goal to deepen and formalize its markets.

Catalysts, on the other hand, are clear and verifiable: guidelines on bank custody, regulatory approval for local ETFs/ETNs, transparent compliance pathways for distribution.

On the policy front, movement is already evident. The BCCh has produced two reports on CBDCs (2022 and 2024), signaling a central bank that favors a cautious architecture over media-friendly experiments. The CMF is implementing a regulatory plan for 2025–26 and has begun introducing open finance rules from 2024. This legal framework enables secure, interoperable data sharing and, consequently, new products.

From a political perspective, Kast’s victory set a deregulatory tone. However, the Chilean system continues to channel change through institutions. Congress remains divided, and the first hundred days will be defined by what the government manages to pass through regulatory mechanisms, not by sudden monetary experiments.

When banks will move the system: the radical but testable scenario

For those watching Chile’s crypto future, Di Bartolomeo’s advice is methodical and verifiable. The first real signals will likely be formal registration requests for local Bitcoin ETFs or ETNs, followed by banks expressing intent to offer custody and basic trading services.

“A strong signal for broader adoption would be banks offering any service or product related to Bitcoin, or political forums discussing updates to banking policies to enable it,” Di Bartolomeo states. This is not spectacle. It’s the enabling of ordinary access channels that normalize local holdings and transactions without legal ambiguity.

From there, attention will shift entirely to the pension system. Any circular expanding the list of eligible assets, or clarifying valuation and custody standards for digital assets, would open the door to small but testable exposures within Chile’s larger capital pools.

For retail and commerce, targeted tax incentives could encourage experimentation. Di Bartolomeo cites de minimis exemptions for small payments already discussed in the U.S. as a model Chile could adopt to allow people to use and receive Bitcoin for payments.

The final calculation: infrastructure, not illusions

Chile’s crypto future will not be decided on a political podium. It will be decided in term sheets, banking regulations, custody standards, and compliance audits. It’s not as viral as El Salvador’s legal tender, but it’s a scalable path.

As Di Bartolomeo concludes: “I don’t see an immediate case for Bitcoin as money in Chile.” The signal will come from banks. If they move, pensions can follow. And it won’t take many basis points to make a difference in the radical calculation of $229.6 billion waiting for the right form.