Argentina’s fintech market continued growing during the past year. According to the latest surveys, with 939 companies, Argentina ranks among the three largest fintech ecosystems in Latin America, alongside Brazil and Mexico.

In terms of payments, according to the latest “Monthly Retail Payments Report” issued by the Argentine Central Bank (Banco Central de la República Argentina or BCRA), as of November 2025 a total of 205 “payment service providers offering payment accounts” (Proveedores de Servicios de Pago que Ofrecen Cuentas de Pago or PSPCPs) had been incorporated into the registry administered by that authority. This represents a 20.6% increase compared to the 170 PSPCPs registered in November 2024.

Likewise, in November 2025, 666.3 million immediate “push” transfers were recorded, totalling ARS70.1 trillion, representing year-on-year increases of 20.3% in volume and 18.2% in real terms in value. 73% of these transfers originated from and/or were destined to a CVU (payment accounts provided by a PSPCP).

With respect to payment accounts and funds invested through PSPCPs, in October 2025, out of a total of 61.7 million payment accounts, 14.6 million of these recorded positive balances, totalling ARS0.6 trillion, while balances invested in money market mutual funds (Fondos Comunes de Inversión or FCIs) reached ARS5.6 trillion. Considered jointly, both represent 6.3% of total peso-denominated private-sector deposits.

One of the main regulatory developments in the payments sector took place towards the end of 2025 with the presentation of the labour reform bill promoted by the government. This bill enables virtual accounts to be used for the payment of salaries, ending the exclusivity previously held by bank accounts for this purpose. The bill was expected to be discussed in February 2026.

Regarding credit, according to the latest report from the Argentine Fintech Chamber, as of March 2025 Argentina had reached 5.2 million fintech credit holders. Additionally, of the 34.6 million credits granted in the country as of March 2025, 16.5% were issued by fintech companies. By comparison, in December 2024 a total of 33 million credits had been granted, of which 15.2% were issued by fintech companies.

On the cryptocurrency front, according to information from the Argentine Fintech Chamber, Argentina ranks among the top five countries worldwide in terms of crypto application users, with more than 2.5 million monthly active users, and is the highest-ranked Spanish-speaking country in the list. In addition, Argentina is the second-largest market in the region by transaction volume, with more than USD93.9 billion transacted on blockchain over the past year.

This segment entered into a new implementation phase with the enactment of the National Securities Exchange Commission (Comisión Nacional de Valores or CNV) Resolutions No 994 and 1058. This regulation builds upon Law No 27,739, which incorporated the definition of “virtual assets” (activos virtuales or AVs) and “virtual asset service providers” (proveedores de servicios de activos virtuales or PSAVs) into the legal framework, and designated the CNV as the competent authority for their registration, supervision, regulation and sanctioning. In this context, Resolution No 994 and, in particular, Resolution No 1058 established the initial regulatory principles applicable to PSAVs (focusing on information security and prudential standards, among others), and formalised the PSAV registry within the CNV, making prior registration a mandatory requirement for entities providing virtual asset services in or directed to Argentina. This regulatory framework has been regarded by the industry as pragmatic, flexible and gradual. As of early January 2026, 94 legal entities and two individuals were registered.

In addition, in recent months, the CNV issued Resolutions No 1069, 1081 and 1087, which authorised the tokenisation of certain securities. This regime includes debt securities or participation certificates in financial trusts with public offering, whose underlying assets are mainly composed of real-world assets (RWAs), units of closed-end investment funds with public offering backed by RWAs, shares (including dual-listed shares), negotiable obligations, and Argentine Depositary Receipt (CEDEARS). The regime was implemented within a regulatory sandbox for a one-year period, with the possibility of subsequent review and adjustments. The trading of these tokenised securities is carried out by PSAVs duly registered with the CNV.

Finally, there also has been progress in the area of open finance. In May 2025, Decree No 353/2025 was enacted, creating the Open Finance System (Sistema de Finanzas Abiertas), which allows individuals and legal entities to share information with financial institutions registered with the BCRA, subject to express consent, with the aim of fostering credit development, competition and financial inclusion. The BCRA was designated as the authority in charge of implementing and overseeing the system. In this regard, specific regulations to be issued by the BCRA are expected during the first months of 2026.

Looking ahead, the fintech sector is expected to continue growing and developing in the next 12 months, with an increase in the number of companies, transactions, customers and businesses. This is mainly because of the recent change of administration in the federal government, which leans towards promoting citizens’ liberties and freedom of choice in the market, and also because of the good projections in terms of macroeconomic regularisation. At the same time, the regulatory framework is expected to continue evolving and adapting, particularly as the current authorities have actively encouraged public-private dialogue to support these developments.

In Argentina, the payments, crypto and lending verticals are the predominant business models.

In the payments sector, competition between financial applications intensified and took on different forms. In the retail segment, differentiation focused on the incorporation of new products, promotions and discounts, while other platforms geared their strategy towards the institutional segment, offering solutions for companies that include international transfers. It should also be noted that the consolidation of user experience was a driver of growth in this vertical, along with trust, security and cybersecurity, which today serve as strategic differentiators to sustain the sector's development, enhanced by the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) for real-time fraud detection, the automation of operational processes, and the reduction of friction in digital transactions.

In the crypto vertical, most crypto-asset exchanges operating in Argentina allow their users to acquire various types of cryptocurrencies (including stablecoins), and provide access to decentralised finance (DeFi) products. Moreover, the BCRA is working on and advancing a plan that would allow banks to offer cryptocurrency purchase, sale and custody services, which could be announced during the first months of 2026. This measure would benefit not only banks but also PSAVs and other fintechs that develop services for businesses, as they could become traditional banks’ crypto partners.

Regarding the lending vertical, this segment shows a relative lag due, among other factors, to the macroeconomic context inherited from previous years; however, it has shown a significant recovery in recent months, and further improvements are expected as the macroeconomic environment continues to stabilise and improve. The main challenge lies in deepening credit penetration. Participants in this segment consider that such progress can be achieved through, among other things, increased data availability – an aspect expected to be driven by the new Open Finance measures (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market) – and fully digital, end-to-end processes, which enable more efficient collection mechanisms and lower operating costs, as well as through enhanced financial education.

In addition, there have been important new projects and start-ups in the regtech sector and in the provision of IT services to financial institutions and fintech companies, as well as in the use of blockchain technology.

There is no centralised regulatory framework governing the entire fintech ecosystem in Argentina. Instead, there are separate regulations scattered throughout the legal system, with some issues receiving more detailed regulation than others. The following paragraphs review the key regulations that apply to the main fintech verticals.

Payments Verticals

Before 2020, e-money systems were not expressly covered by any specific regulation within the Argentine domestic legal framework; therefore, they were governed by pre-existing general rules, such as (among others):

• the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC);
• the Consumer Protection Law No 24,240 (CPL);
• certain aspects of the Credit Cards Law No 25,065 (CCL);
• the Anti Money Laundering Law No 25,246 (AMLL) for certain business models;
• the Personal Data Protection Law No 25,326 (PDPL); and
• the Digital Signature Law No 25,506 (DSL).

Many of these regulations continue to apply today, notwithstanding the specific regulations enacted in recent years.

In 2020, the BCRA issued a series of communications aimed at regulating these businesses, which have been named PSPCPs, and implemented Transfers 3.0 (Transferencias 3.0), an interoperability scheme between bank accounts and payment accounts that enables QR-code interoperability, and immediate settlement.

Throughout the following years, the BCRA issued further regulation for payment service providers (proveedores de servicios de pago or PSPs), incorporating new roles (among others, initiation, acquiring, aggregation or sub-acquiring, and non-bank agencies that collect payment of taxes and/or services), and enacting rules that align the operation of payment accounts issued by PSPCPs with that of bank accounts, as well as progressively establishing more stringent cybersecurity and digital fraud prevention requirements for all participants in the system.

Lending Businesses

Online lending businesses are mainly regulated by the CCC, as regular lending operations, in addition to the CPL, AMLL, PDPL and DSL.

Also, in 2020 the BCRA amended the rules regarding “non-financial credit providers” (proveedores no financieros de crédito or PNFCs), making them mandatory for companies that, based on their last financial statements, granted credit in excess of ARS10 million and are not financial institutions.

In addition, in 2021 the BCRA regulated crowdlending businesses, which have been named “providers of credit services between individuals through platforms” (proveedores de servicios de créditos entre particulares a través de plataformas or PSCPPs).

Equity crowdfunding is regulated by Entrepreneurial Capital Support Law No 27,349 (ECSL) and CNV Resolution No 942/2022.

PSAVs

At an initial stage, PSAV businesses were regulated by the pre-existing general rules of the CCC, the CPL, the PDPL and the DSL, among others.

In 2024, the regulation status of these businesses underwent a series of changes, among other things through the enactment of Law No 27,739 that modified the AMLL, defined the concepts of AV and PSAV, designated the PSAVs as obligated entities before the Financial Intelligence Unit (Unidad de Información Financiera or UIF), and created a PSAV Registry under the CNV. In this context, the CNV and UIF issued Resolutions No 994/24 and 49/24, respectively, to regulate the provisions of Law No 27,739.

Subsequently, in 2025, the CNV issued Resolution No 1058/25, which went a step further, establishing the core principles and initial parameters applicable to the provision of PSAV services, including general rules of conduct and the definition of specific conditions under which PSAVs must carry out their activities, following a principles-based and risk-oriented approach.

However, the CNV’s regulatory authority does not extend to the regulation of virtual assets themselves, except where such assets fall within the definition of negotiable securities, pursuant to the CNV’s original jurisdiction under Capital Market Law No 26,831 (CML). In this regard, in 2025 the CNV enabled the tokenisation of certain securities authorised for public offering through CNV Resolutions No 1069, 1081 and 1087 (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market).

Regtech Businesses

Regtech businesses, the provision of computer services and innovations in the use of blockchain technology are regulated by the CCC, the DSL and Intellectual Property Law No 11,723 (IPL).

Public Offerings of Securities, Securities Markets and Exchanges

The CML regulates public offerings of securities, securities markets and exchanges, and intermediaries operating in such markets; it also covers the public offering of term contracts, futures and options, their markets, clearing houses and intermediaries.

Insurtech

Insurtech activities fall under the general rules of Insurance Law No 17,418 (IL).

Compensation models vary from business to business and vertical to vertical.

Businesses related to the payments vertical are usually compensated through transactional commissions that are ultimately borne by the affiliated businesses.

PSAVs frequently charge a fee for their services or include their earnings in the prices of the cryptocurrencies that can be purchased or sold on their platforms.

Businesses related to lending verticals are compensated through the interest rate charged to the borrower. It is important to mention that case law exists that limits the interest applicable to loans when such interest is deemed excessive. 

In regtech undertakings and the provision of IT, as well as blockchain and services to financial institutions and fintech companies, the compensation model is freely agreed between the parties (ranging from fixed amounts to variables per transaction).

While legacy players’ activity tends to be highly regulated and centralised mostly by the BCRA and the CNV, the regulation applicable to the fintech industry is more flexible and, as mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime, there is no centralised regulatory framework governing the entire fintech ecosystem. Nevertheless, the BCRA and the CNV do issue specific regulations on most of the verticals. 

Unlike financial institutions, in some cases prior authorisation from a state agency is not required to carry out or operate a fintech business. 

There are also some distinctions from a tax perspective between transactions carried out by or through financial institutions and transactions carried out by or through fintech companies. However, it is likely that such distinctions will gradually disappear.

There is no comprehensive or fully established sandbox regime in Argentina, beyond certain isolated or preliminary initiatives.

In April 2022, the CNV launched an “Innovation Hub” aimed at those entities with service technology projects and/or innovative financial products that are linked to the capital market. This was to be the first step towards a possible CNV regulatory sandbox, which was ultimately not launched in 2023.

In 2024, the Argentine Fintech Chamber, in collaboration with the organisation Crecimiento, submitted a proposal to regulate the tokenisation of RWAs through a sandbox. Regulatory agencies (BCRA, CNV and UIF) remain in constant communication with the Chamber and the organisation regarding the proposal, and have shown interest in advancing it.

Finally, in June 2025, the CNV launched a regulatory sandbox for the tokenisation of securities, solely as a temporary regime with a one-year duration (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market). Upon the expiry of this regime, the CNV will assess its continuation and potential expansion.

Just as fintech regulations are scattered (as mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime), so too is the jurisdiction of the regulators involved in the sector. 

The BCRA

The BCRA has jurisdiction over entities engaged in regular intermediation between the supply and demand of financial resources (financial institutions) that fall within the scope of the FEL. It is responsible for the regulation and supervision of monetary policy, credit policies and exchange control regulations. In addition, the BCRA has competence in payments and can expand its regulatory purview to other activities when deemed necessary, considering the volume of operations and their impact on credit and monetary policies. 

The CNV

The CNV is responsible for implementing the CML. It has jurisdiction and oversight over various areas, including public offerings, brokerage entities, collective investment schemes, and securities exchanges and markets. Also, as mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime, after the issuing of Law No 27,739, the CNV has jurisdiction over and oversees PSAVs.

The AAIP

Another relevant regulator is the Public Information Access Agency (Agencia de Acceso a la Información Pública or AAIP), which is the implementing authority of the PDPL. 

The UIF

The UIF is the implementing authority of the AMLL. 

The SSN

The Superintendence of Insurance (Superintendencia de Seguros de la Nación or SSN) has jurisdiction over the IL, supervising the activities of producers, intermediaries, and insurance and reinsurance entities.

In Argentina, regulators do not issue “no-action” letters.

Financial institutions may outsource several functions to third-party vendors. However, this activity is regulated by the BCRA, which must be informed of such arrangements and which may carry out inspections of the premises and activities of the vendors. Despite this, the outsourcing of regulated functions does not release a financial institution from its obligations vis-à-vis its clients and the BCRA. 

Moreover, PSAVs may also outsource functions inherent to their activity to third-party vendors, in accordance with the regulatory framework established by the CNV. Such outsourcing arrangements must be formalised through agreements that expressly require third parties to provide all information necessary for the PSAV to comply with the applicable reporting regime and with any information requests issued by the CNV or other competent authorities. In all cases, outsourcing arrangements may not include any waiver or limitation of the PSAV’s responsibility for the services provided. PSAVs must notify the CNV of such arrangements, report their termination, and make the relevant agreements available upon request of the CNV.

Fintech providers are under no specific legal obligation to act as gatekeepers. At the same time, these entities fall under the general security and diligence obligations contained in the CCC, the CPL and the PDPL and must therefore ensure that their platforms operate adequately. 

In addition, almost all fintech companies fall within the scope of the AMLL and are considered reporting entities under the regulations, subject to registration, know-your-customer (KYC) and suspicious transaction reporting obligations.

When fintech companies engage in activities that fall within the scope of the Financial Entities Law No 21,526 (FEL) or the CML, without the corresponding authorisations, or fail to comply with the regulations applicable to them by any of the regulatory agencies (BCRA, CNV, UIF), these authorities may initiate summary investigations and impose sanctions.

The sanctions applicable to individuals and legal entities that violate the provisions include warnings or notices, financial penalties, and temporary or permanent prohibitions to operate and disqualifications from serving as directors, administrators, trustees, members of supervisory boards, managers, compliance officers or auditors, among others.

Additionally, if the investigation reveals the commission of crimes, the authorities may initiate the corresponding criminal actions.

The CCC

As mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime, all fintech businesses fall under the provisions of the CCC, based on the similarities of their operations with nominated businesses provided for in the CCC. In addition, the general rules applicable to contracts and obligations under the CCC include the following topics: 

• liability regime (Section 1708 et seq); 
• accountability regime (rendición de cuentas) (Section 858 et seq); 
• the principle of good faith (Section 961); and
• standard-form contracts (Section 984 et seq).

The DSL

The DSL also applies since this regulation incorporates the concepts of digital documents, electronic signatures and digital signatures into the Argentine legal framework, and establishes the terms of equivalence between these new concepts and the concepts of material documents and handwritten signatures.

The PDPL

The PDPL establishes several rights that companies must recognise regarding personal data holders. It also limits the way data can be collected and processed, and mandates specific actions that companies must take before the competent authority.

The CPL

B2C business is subject to the CPL, which is designed to protect consumers as the weaker party in contractual relationships.

The Antitrust Law

Fintech businesses are also subject to the Argentine Antitrust Law No 27,442 (AAL). This law applies across all verticals, but in practice is particularly relevant to the payments vertical, especially with respect to abuse of a dominant position, restrictive contractual arrangements, and merger control. This is all the more so given that, in recent years, there have been interventions by the competition authority, as well as cross-complaints among different fintech players and between fintechs and banks.

Regulation of Cybersecurity

There is no uniform set of rules regarding cybersecurity. Responsibility (including the indemnification regime) arising from the loss of information by fintech companies is governed, in principle, by the CCC, the CPL and the PDPL. Resolution 47/18 issued by the AAIP sets forth a series of recommended security measures aimed at facilitating compliance with the PDPL, including matters related to the collection of personal data, access control, control of changes, back-up and recovery, vulnerability management, information destruction, security incidents and development environments.

Likewise, among other specific rules, the BCRA has established cybersecurity standards for banks and PSPs, and the CNV has issued similar standards for PSAVs.

Regulation of Software Development

Software development is generally regulated by the CCC and the IPL. 

In addition to regulators, other relevant players are actively involved in the sector. The most important fintech companies are grouped in the Argentine Fintech Chamber, and different bank associations represent the interests of financial institutions. There are also important organisations that promote the use of blockchain technology in its various forms.

In Argentina, there are several cases of industry participants offering unregulated products and services in conjunction with regulated products and services. 

Many fintech companies offer unregulated products and services in conjunction with regulated products. For example, Mercado Libre (an Argentine company that hosts the largest online commerce and payments ecosystem in Latin America) operates simultaneously from a single entity as a PSPCP, a PNFC and a marketplace. Also, Mercado Libre offers its clients the possibility of investing in funds administrated by different companies. 

Moreover, the BCRA has allowed financial institutions to participate in fintech companies and provide services through these companies. 

Notwithstanding the above, it is worth mentioning that in May 2022 the BCRA prohibited financial institutions from carrying out or facilitating their clients in carrying out operations with crypto-assets, which was also extended to PSPCPs in May 2023, banning these companies from carrying out and facilitating crypto-asset transactions for their clients. It is expected that this ban will be lifted in the short term.

The reform of the AMLL that came into effect with the enactment of Law No 27,739 significantly impacted many fintech businesses, primarily by expanding the scope of reporting entities. Notably, the new reporting requirements now apply to all functions of PSP, PSAVs and PNFCs.

Under the AMLL, these entities are required to fulfil several obligations, including:

• registering with the UIF;
• identifying ultimate beneficial owners;
• demonstrating AML/CFT prevention procedures;
• appointing compliance officers;
• assessing the risk profile of each client;
• conducting due diligence; and
• investigating the origin of funds flowing through their platforms, etc.

Regarding sanctions, the reform also introduced stricter penalties. The potential fines applicable in such proceedings have increased, and a new sanction allows for the disqualification of compliance officers in cases of non-compliance.       

Argentina’s AML and sanctions framework follows the standards imposed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). As a member of the FATF since 2000, Argentina aligns its regulations with the organisation’s recommendations.

The 2024 FATF Plenary concluded that Argentina had strengthened its AML and CFT framework since its last mutual evaluation in 2010, and highlighted its strong internal co-operation and co-ordination among supervisory and regulatory authorities.

Argentina has not regulated reverse solicitation in general. However, CNV’s General Resolution No 1016/2024 regulates a safe harbour in reverse solicitation for securities. Also, Resolution No 1058 takes this circumstance into account as one of the factors to be considered when assessing whether foreign PSAVs are required to register in Argentina.

Robo-adviser services can vary, and range from financial advice to the possible assumption and automated management of the client’s investment portfolio based on their profile. 

Robo-advisers are subject to the same regulations applicable to agents (brokers and investment managers) who are authorised to participate in exchanges and markets under the CML and CNV regulations. 

Through its rules and general resolutions, the CNV regulates different figures that could use robo-advisers as an investment tool. Therefore, the use of a robo-adviser by an agent regulated by the CNV will be subject to the general rules applicable to such activity.

Legacy players continue to carry out their activities within the existing legal framework. 

Robo-advisers are gaining increasing popularity among investors, with traditional players gradually beginning to implement the use of robo-adviser solutions. In particular, some traditional institutions have made significant investments in the digitalisation of their services, driven not only by evolving customer expectations but also by regulatory developments and broader market trends.

These efforts include, for example, enhancements to online investment platforms and the expansion of digital investment services, although fully automated robo-advisory solutions remain limited among traditional players.

In line with international guidelines, proper execution of client operations involves knowing the integral profile of the client (their risk profile as well as their financial expectations) and, on the basis of this information, providing advice in a reasonable manner that is personalised and consistent between the profile of the investor and the recommended trade.

When the online lender is a financial institution (which finances its loans with third-party deposits), the activity is heavily regulated by the BCRA in order to safeguard the funds of the general public. In this sense, there are restrictions on the amount of the loans that can be granted, the concentration among sectors, etc. 

Where the online lender is a fintech company (in which case, the main source of funds is own capital and the securitisation of previous loans), its lending activity is subject to the PNFC regulations mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime, which establish the need to register and report to the BCRA, as well as a series of information duties addressed to its clients, and certain obligations and conditions applicable to its operation – including how to calculate rates and impose additional charges, how their contracts should be redacted, and how to handle claims. 

Fintech lenders tend to cater to the credit market, which is not usually covered by traditional lenders – ie, individuals with insufficient credit records.

Further, under Law No 27,739, PNFCs were included as reporting subjects. Therefore, in addition to the obligations that may apply to them under the scope of the BCRA, their activity is now supervised by the UIF (as was the case with financial institutions).

Fintech companies operating in the online credit market rely on various digital onboarding systems to identify and link with clients remotely, using digital documents and electronic signatures. However, these systems vary in terms of their security measures. 

To reinforce customer identification and credit risk prediction, these companies are increasingly utilising the opportunity to collect, process and cross-check customer information. 

Recently, the BCRA and the UIF have also authorised banks to introduce a fully digital onboarding experience, which has led to the emergence of 100% digital financial entities.

Also, under Law No 27,739, PNFCs were included as reporting subjects, and must comply with a series of additional obligations in terms of identifying and monitoring their clients.

Within the framework of the new Open Finance regulations (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market), the BCRA seeks to strengthen onboarding and credit scoring by accessing more information on borrowers, increasing the granting of credit, and improving collection conditions.

See 4.1 Differences in the Business or Regulation of Fiat Currency Loans Provided to Different Entities and 4.4 Syndication of Fiat Currency Loans.

Although they are not a syndication of loans in the traditional sense, crowdlending platforms that currently operate in the local market (where loans are funded by several investors through the platform) could be regarded as a case of syndication of loans. 

This activity is subject to the PSCPP regime mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime, which establishes the need to register and report to the BCRA, as well as a series of information duties addressed to the platform’s clients, and certain obligations and conditions applicable to its operation, including the obligation to segregate the funds of its clients. Under certain conditions, PSCPPs may provide credit analysis, administration and collection management services.

Payment processors can use existing payment rails or create and implement new payment rails.

In January 2020, the BCRA imposed the PSPCP regime mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime, which establishes the need to register and report to the BCRA, as well as a series of information duties addressed to the processor’s clients, and certain obligations and conditions applicable to its operation, including the obligation to segregate the funds of its clients and the obligation to refund client funds immediately upon request.

During 2020 and 2021, the BCRA promoted interoperability among different PSPCPs and among PSPCPs and banks. For this purpose, it created the so-called Uniform Virtual Code (CVU) to identify virtual accounts provided by PSPCPs and introduced standards for payments through rapid-response codes (QR codes) to make it possible for customers of one payment system (a banking account or a virtual account provided by a PSPCP) to execute payments in shops added in a different payment system. At the very beginning, this was only available for payments with an account balance.

In 2022, the BCRA established a regulatory framework for “payment initiation service providers” (proveedores de servicios de iniciación de pagos or PSIs), requiring their registration, among other things. Likewise, the BCRA regulated “pull” transfers, empowering PSIs and PSPCPs to initiate payments. Technical specifications were finalised during 2023.

During 2022, the BCRA also established special authentication and cybersecurity requirements for PSIs and PSPCPs, stipulated special responsibilities with regard to consumer protection for the companies involved in these businesses, and required the entire financial industry to implement certain anti-fraud measures. Many of these measures were strengthened and reinforced for all PSPs during 2023.

In 2023, the BCRA regulated new roles of PSPs and required these players to register. The roles are acquiring, aggregation or sub-acquiring, and non-bank agencies that collect payment of taxes and/or services.

In addition, in 2023 and 2024, the BCRA reinforced the interoperability of QR codes by extending them to credit cards.

Argentina has a series of exchange control regulations aimed at restricting the outflow of foreign currency. In this sense, and broadly speaking, specific requirements are applicable to the inflow of funds, and the remittance of funds outside the country may, depending on each particular case, be restricted or subject to the prior authorisation of the BCRA. 

Over the past year, the competent authorities have eased these restrictions, and it is expected that this trend will continue in 2026.

At the end of 2023, the UIF issued Resolution No 1/2023, incorporating the risk-based approach into the monitoring of activities carried out by individuals or legal entities managing fund remittances, both within and outside the national territory. This approach requires remittance operators to identify, assess and understand the risks associated with their activities, with the objective of adopting effective measures to manage, mitigate and prevent crimes related to money laundering and terrorist financing.

In addition to the traditional exchanges and markets regulated by the CML and the CNV resolutions, there are emerging crowdfunding businesses, such as crowdfunding platforms connecting borrowers with lenders, and a significant number of crypto-asset exchanges.

As mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime and 4.4 Syndication of Fiat Currency Loans, only equity crowdfunding and crowdlending have been expressly regulated. The remaining crowdfunding business models fall within the scope of the general provisions of the CCC, among other regulations. 

With respect to crypto-asset exchanges, see 6.3 Impact of the Emergence of Cryptocurrency Exchanges. 

See 6.1 Permissible Trading Platforms, 6.3 Impact of the Emergence of Cryptocurrency Exchanges and 10.3. Classification of Blockchain Assets.

As stated in 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market and 2.2 Regulatory Regime, PSAV businesses were regulated by the pre-existing general rules of the CCC, the CPL, the PDPL and the DSL, among others.

In 2024, the regulation of these businesses underwent a series of changes, among other things through the enactment of Law No 27,739 that modified the AMLL, defined the concepts of AV and PSAV, designated the PSAVs as obligated entities before the UIF, and created a PSAV Registry under the CNV. In this context, the CNV and UIF issued Resolutions No 994/24 and 49/24, respectively, to regulate the provisions of Law No 27,739.

Later, with the issuance of CNV Resolution No 1058 in 2025, the CNV further strengthened and expanded the regulatory framework applicable to PSAVs and their obligations. Among the requirements imposed on PSAVs carrying out the activities described in the preceding paragraph are:

• compliance with a minimum net worth requirement of up to USD150,000;
• the adoption of a code of conduct;
• the implementation of systems aimed at preventing, detecting and reporting financial crime risks, including money laundering and terrorist financing, together with corresponding prevention policies;
• the adoption of procedural manuals governing systems and operations;
• the appointment of various responsible officers; and
• the submission of audit reports on the systems used by the PSAV, in addition to regulatory compliance and internal control reports.

On the one hand, PSAVs may only offer AVs that include general information in a “white paper” and/or other informational materials containing relevant information about the issuer and the project, among other matters. Such information must be published or made available on the PSAV’s website and/or mobile application and must be accessible and available at all times in Spanish or in English.

Likewise, only those AVs whose launch occurred less than 90 days prior may be made available to users on the PSAV’s platform and/or mobile application, provided that they include a special warning indicating that, due to their recent launch, they may entail volatility, a risk of total loss of the amounts allocated to them, and, in general, a level of risk that may in all cases be potentially higher than that of other AVs with a longer track record. Such AVs must, at least during such period, be presented in a specific section of the PSAV’s platform and/or mobile application.

Finally, PSAVs may not offer securities that have not been approved by the CNV, in accordance with the regime set forth in CNV Resolutions No 1069, 1081 and 1087 (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market).

On the other hand, within the context of equity crowdfunding mentioned in 6.1 Permissible Trading Platforms, equity crowdfunding platforms must review and select the projects that will be offered for financing. For this purpose, a project selection guide must be prepared that must include objective, reasonable and non-discriminatory parameters applying measurable and consistent criteria. In addition, the platform must contemplate procedures to inhibit or cancel potentially fraudulent projects. 

CNV rules set down the guidelines on how agents must execute orders placed by investors. In this respect, it is established that orders must be executed in the terms given by the clients and promptly entered into the order registration system of the market. Furthermore, the agents are required to have procedures in place that allow them to enter orders into the computer trading system of the interconnected market where the best market conditions are available to their clients, while the system used by the agent for the placement of orders must ensure the accurate registration of the order in the transaction ticket.

In addition, the CNV has specific rules for equity crowdfunding (see 6.1 Permissible Trading Platforms).

Also, within the framework established by CNV Resolution No 1058, PSAVs are required to adopt internal procedures governing the receipt, registration and execution of clients’ orders involving AVs. PSAVs must ensure that orders are processed in accordance with clients’ instructions and that each transaction is promptly and accurately recorded in electronic systems that ensure full traceability, including, at a minimum, the date and time of the transaction, the type and amount of the AV, the identification of the client, and the corresponding transaction identifier (where applicable, the hash or transaction ID).

In addition, PSAVs must act in good faith and with due care, prioritising clients’ interests and avoiding conflicts in the handling of orders, including by refraining from executing transactions for their own account when client orders of the same nature are pending. PSAVs operating platforms, wallets or applications must have systems and controls in place to ensure the correct and traceable processing of transactions and the maintenance of auditable electronic records.

Likewise, a functionally equivalent framework applies to PSAVs under CNV Resolutions No 1069, 1081 and 1087, within the regime governing the tokenisation of negotiable securities (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market).

The rise of peer-to-peer (P2P) trading platforms significantly impacts both traditional financial institutions and fintech players. By reducing or entirely eliminating the role of intermediaries, these platforms lower commissions and make services more affordable. This creates competition for traditional banks and fintech companies offering digital exchange services, as P2P platforms operate with lower costs by avoiding traditional infrastructure.

A key challenge lies in the regulatory framework. In Argentina, P2P trading platforms are not specifically regulated, which poses risks for investors who have less protection due to the absence of a defined legal framework.

In Argentina, the practice of payment for order flow is not well regarded as this could affect market transparency and would be contrary to the duty of loyalty and diligence owed to investors. In this regard, see 6.8 Market Integrity Principles.

The CML recognises the following principles: 

• investors’ protection and the prevention of abuses; 
• the need for small and mid-cap companies to have access to the capital markets; 
• simplification in the negotiation process to achieve greater liquidity and competition; 
• systemic risk reduction; 
• capital markets’ integrity and transparency; and 
• financial inclusion.

Within this context, the following are considered contrary to market integrity: 

• abuse of privileged information; 
• data manipulation and deceit in the market; and 
• unauthorised intervention in public offerings. 

The creation and use of these technologies in Argentina are regulated by the markets and exchanges that operate in the country as part of the self-regulating powers granted by the CML and CNV regulations. Accordingly, such technologies must comply with the applicable market rules which reflect and implement CNV principles, including prohibitions against market manipulation, fraudulent transactions and other abusive practices.

CNV regulations specifically delegate to each market and exchange the drafting of the rules and registry applicable to market makers. CNV regulations only stipulate certain minimum requirements that the markets must follow when issuing the rules that regulate the activity. In 2023, the CNV issued Resolution 951/2023, which incorporated amendments to the regulation for market makers. Certain broker dealers are allowed to perform as market makers under certain conditions specified in the regulation. Each market must have a registry of its market makers. Market makers can only operate in this capacity for instruments they are authorised to handle by the respective market.

In Argentina, the regulations do not distinguish between funds that engage in these activities and dealers engaged in these activities. 

There is no specific regulation regarding the creation of trading algorithms and other electronic trading tools. These kinds of tools are subject to the regulations set forth by each of the markets and exchanges that operate in the country as part of the self-regulating powers granted by the CML and CNV regulations, as well as the general rules of the CCC and the IPL. 

In recent years, the insurance contracting process has become increasingly flexible and agile by taking advantage of the possibilities of digitalisation. For example, the SSN has allowed insurance companies to issue policies with digital signatures, and to receive instructions from their customers through digital platforms.

In addition, with the increased ability to obtain and process information about policyholders and the risks that fall on insured assets, insurance companies have been steadily improving their results. 

Each of the different types of insurance (eg, life, property and casualty) has its specific regulation, as provided by the IL and SSN rules, mainly set up before the rise of insurtech.

See 2.2 Regulatory Regime, 2.8 Outsourcing of Regulated Functions and 2.11 Implications of Additional, Non-Financial Services Regulations.

Contractual terms regarding the provision of technology services are established on a case-by-case basis from the negotiations of the respective parties, since the outcome of such negotiations will vary on a case-by-case basis according to the negotiating strength of each party in a particular case. 

Financial services firms try to impose the following contractual terms on technology providers, among others: 

• a guarantee for the operation and service; 
• a guarantee for compliance with all applicable laws; 
• a guarantee not to affect third-party rights; and 
• fines for breach of deadlines. 

Many traditional players are using (or are planning to use) blockchain technology in order to improve the processing, management and storage of information, as well as to automate the execution of certain processes, execute transnational payments and enhance their traceability and security, and tokenise and trade financial assets. Research and exercises are currently being carried out between financial institutions and private sector providers.

There is no integral specific regulation regarding blockchain technology in Argentina. However, it is generally understood that the existing regulations in the DSL and the CCC regarding digital documents, and electronic and digital signatures, are sufficient to allow the use of blockchain technology (although, in practice, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis), while in certain cases there may be a pre-existing regulation that stipulates some requirement or process that is incompatible with this technology. 

Without prejudice to the above, progress in blockchain regulation continues at a steady pace, and the outlook appears favourable. For example, in July 2024, through Decree 640/2024, the Argentine government approved the tokenisation of assets by updating the warrant regime governed by Law No 9643. This update allows for the electronic registration and blockchain-based trading of warrants. The decree includes authorisation for the use of electronic signatures to validate warrant transactions on the blockchain and eliminates the requirement for deposits to be officially registered as depositors and warrant issuers.

Moreover, as highlighted in 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market, the CNV issued resolutions regulating the tokenisation of certain securities through a sandbox initiative, with the aim of fostering the development of blockchain-related projects.

Although Law No 27,739 introduced a definition of AVs, its primary focus is on establishing the regulatory framework for PSAVs. As a result, while the law provides some clarity on the concept of AVs, there is still no comprehensive regulation specifically governing crypto-assets.

In this context, pre-existing rules and generic standards will apply (see 2.2 Regulatory Regime and 2.11 Implications of Additional, Non-Financial Services Regulations), and the regulatory treatment of crypto-assets in Argentina will depend on their nature, with some being considered marketable securities and therefore subject to the provisions of the CML and CNV Resolutions No 1069, 1081 and 1087 (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market).

In Argentina, there is no specific regulation applicable to issuers of blockchain assets in general. Although, as mentioned in 10.3 Classification of Blockchain Assets, where crypto-assets are security tokens that could be assimilated into marketable securities, the issuance of such assets would fall under the provisions of the CML, and has been regulated pursuant to CNV Resolutions No 1069, 1081 and 1087 (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market). 

In addition, where the issuer carries out crypto-to-fiat or crypto-to-crypto exchange activities in Argentina, it shall be required to comply with the regulatory framework applicable to PSAVs, as established under CNV Resolution No 1058 (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market and 6.3 Impact of the Emergence of Cryptocurrency Exchanges).

See 6.3 Impact of the Emergence of Cryptocurrency Exchanges and 6.6 Rise of Peer-to-Peer Trading Platforms.

The provision of staking services relating to cryptocurrencies is not yet regulated in Argentina. In this context, pre-existing rules and generic standards will apply (please see 2.2 Regulatory Regime and 2.11 Implications of Additional, Non-Financial Services Regulations).

The provision of lending services relating to cryptocurrencies has no specific regulation in Argentina. In this context, it can be understood that the general rules of the regime applicable to PNFCs apply. See 2.2 Regulatory Regime and 4.1 Differences in the Business or Regulation of Fiat Currency Loans Provided to Different Entities. 

There is no specific regulation yet in Argentina regarding cryptocurrency derivatives. In this context, pre-existing rules and generic standards will apply (see 2.2 Regulatory Regime and 2.11 Implications of Additional, Non-Financial Services Regulations).

Currently, there is no specific regulation for DeFi. In this context, pre-existing rules and generic standards will apply (see 2.2 Regulatory Regime and 2.11 Implications of Additional, Non-Financial Services Regulations).

In 2023, Banco Industrial (BIND) launched the first investment fund that includes investments in digital assets alongside instruments regulated by the CNV. The investment portfolio includes Bitcoin futures, and Argentine Depositary Certificates of Foreign Shares in tech companies and in fixed income assets. This initiative was later followed by similar developments from other market participants.

In addition, in recent months, the CNV issued Resolutions No 1069, 1081 and 1087, which authorised the tokenisation of certain securities, including units of closed-end investment funds with public offering backed by RWAs (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market).

Under Argentina’s Law No 27,739, virtual currencies are broadly encompassed within the category of “virtual assets”.

NFTs have not yet been subject to specific regulation in Argentina. In this context, pre-existing rules and generic standards will apply (see 2.2 Regulatory Regime, 2.11 Implications of Additional, Non-Financial Services Regulations and 10.3 Classification of Blockchain Assets).

Under Argentina’s Law No 27,739, stablecoins qualify as AVs. However, there is currently no specific regulation for stablecoins. In this context, pre-existing regulations and general regulatory standards apply (see 2.2 Regulatory Regime). For instance, as they fall within the general definition of AVs, stablecoins are subject to the regulatory regime applicable to PSAVs when they are offered, held in custody, or intermediated in Argentina by these.

As mentioned in 5.1 Payment Processors’ Use of Payment Rails, during 2022 the BCRA began to regulate PSIs along with “pull” transfers, empowering PSIs and PSPCPs to initiate payments.

Draft legislation on personal data protection exists (which, to a certain extent, replicates the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation). This draft legislation incorporates the right to personal data portability, thereby allowing for the consolidation of open banking. However, little progress has been made towards enacting this legislation. 

In recent years, both the BCRA and the UIF have incorporated some provisions allowing banks to share their clients’ information at their request within the framework of digital onboarding processes. However, these rules have not yet been fully implemented and adopted in practice by the industry, and the absence of sufficient regulations prevents open banking’s full deployment.

In practice, some fintech providers have implemented platforms that allow clients to access all their bank account information in different entities through individual agreements with the different entities involved.

Finally, in 2025, Decree No 353/2025 was enacted, creating the Open Finance system. The system allows individuals and legal entities to share information with financial institutions registered before the BCRA. In this context, specific regulations to be issued by the BCRA are expected during the first months of 2026 (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market).

There is general agreement that this process could expose clients’ personal data due to the increase in information flow. It is in this context that a full open banking exercise will require that the protection of personal data be strengthened and reviewed. Also, market players are concerned about compensation models, cybersecurity measures and how liability would be allocated among the different parties in the event of a breach.

The elements of fraud in the context of financial services and fintech are similar to those applicable to traditional financial institutions. The main law governing and punishing perpetrators of crimes related to fraud is the Criminal Code of Argentina (the “Criminal Code”), which applies to the entire country. Fraud can also give rise to civil liability for the involved companies. Fraud and scams are punished by law. Cyberfraud was incorporated into the Criminal Code in 2008. Cyberfraud punishes the crime of altering an online system with the purpose of defrauding someone. Fraud involves deception that causes financial loss to the victim.

In recent years, in relation to the payment vertical, the BCRA has issued cybersecurity regulations, providing for requirements applicable to the onboarding of users, etc (see 2.11 Implications of Additional, Non-Financial Services Regulations). In turn, the CNV has included similar provisions in Resolutions No 1058, 1069, 1081 and 1087 applicable to PSAVs (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market and 6.3 Impact of the Emergence of Cryptocurrency Exchanges). These aspects are also expected to be a key focus of the regulations to be issued by the BCRA in connection with Open Finance (see 11.1 Regulation of Open Banking).

See 2.11 Implications of Additional, Non-Financial Services Regulations. Additionally, if a fintech company fails to comply with the security measures required by the BCRA or CNV, such as implementing robust authentication systems, it could be held responsible for the losses suffered by customers due to security vulnerabilities.