Uruguay is attempting to bring this industry, which originally operated in a gray area, into the realm of licensing and collateral with a unified regulatory draft. However, who can enter and who is kept out has become the sharpest point of contention in the draft. Some media reports state that the draft requires any business wanting to engage in crypto activities to first present as much as $100,000 as an entry collateral, yet does not differentiate the risks of different business models such as custodial versus non-custodial. Instead, it uses a single standard to lock all participants together. On May 30, 2026, Juan Manuel Sobral, the chairman of the Uruguay Blockchain Association, chose to publicly criticize this draft in the media, pointing out its “obvious flaws”: a one-size-fits-all risk assumption coupled with high collateral essentially pushes local startups and small to medium teams out, raising compliance costs to a level that only financially strong large companies can afford. There are concerns in the industry that such thresholds may be seen as “discriminatory conditions,” forcing entrepreneurs to establish their companies outside Uruguay's jurisdiction, thereby weakening the national tax base and industrial layout; while the regulators insist on a high wall approach in the name of “risk prevention.” On the same day, U.S. lawmakers across the ocean introduced the PARITY Act in Congress, exploring a path for the compliance of digital assets through tax rules, which starkly contrasts with Uruguay’s approach of “paying $100,000 before discussions.” The real game has already shifted from technological avenues to regulatory boundaries: whether to first lock in potential risks or leave survival space for startups will determine the direction of Uruguay's next industrial landscape.

$100,000 Collateral: The Entry Price Set by Regulators

In the unified regulatory framework being established in Uruguay, this high collateral of $100,000 has been written into the draft as the basic ticket for all “crypto business enterprises.” According to CriptoNoticias, this is not an additional clause for a certain type of license but one of the preconditions for entering the market or obtaining permission: whether it is a custodial service provider, a matching trading platform, or a project mainly focused on development, anyone wanting to operate on a compliant track must first pay this amount. Clearly, the regulators are trying to use a high-priced gate to achieve two things: first, to ensure that the operators “have skin in the game” by locking in responsible entities with their own funds; second, to reserve a buffer for potential compensation, liquidation, or shutdown costs, thus achieving risk isolation and consumer protection in the institutional design. In a context of limited resources and underdeveloped assessment capabilities, a one-size-fits-all high collateral is a straightforward and operational choice for regulators.

The problem arises when this gate is uniformly set at $100,000; its impact is asymmetric across organizations of different scales and types. For affluent custodial institutions or large platforms, this amount can be classified as a fixed cost; for local startups and small to medium teams, it resembles an invisible “do not disturb” sign. Sobral pointed out that the draft does not classify risks between custodial and non-custodial services or capital-intensive services versus purely development projects, treating all business models equally and requiring the same level of collateral, resulting in code studios and token custodians being placed in the same regulatory basket while bearing the same heavy entry burden. The Uruguay Blockchain Association is concerned that this uniform threshold may appear fair on paper but in practice only filters out the most vulnerable local innovators. Some industry voices even view it as a “discriminatory threshold,” believing it might push companies to register in countries like Panama or the U.S., leaving the ultimate isolation of either risk or the local ecological growth space dependent on whether the regulators are willing to introduce real risk classification and differentiated entry designs in subsequent revisions.

The One-Size-Fits-All Rule First Crushes Startup Teams

In Sobral’s and the Uruguay Blockchain Association’s narrative, the $100,000 is not an abstract regulatory figure but a lifeline written in the books. One of the core criticisms made publicly by the association is the tangible pressure this entry collateral puts on local startup teams: for early projects still validating products and having teams of three to five, this amount is not a “compliance cost,” but a significant portion of an entire round of financing. Once the draft progresses as currently designed, these teams will either have to lock limited funds into a collateral account or abandon the application for a license in Uruguay, being forced to choose between “surviving” and “compliant entry” before even finding a market for their project.

What Sobral finds even more unfair is that this amount applies equally to all businesses. The draft’s lack of distinction between custodial and non-custodial risks means that a small team providing only technical interfaces without touching user assets bears similar collateral and compliance costs as a large institution that holds customer assets. Under this uniformly high threshold, those truly catered to are the capital-rich banking-level financial institutions or multinational companies, for whom $100,000 is a fixed investment for entering a new market, while the primarily local innovative teams may struggle to even support local registration. The chain reaction that the association worries about is clear: if startups are pushed out, what remains in Uruguay will no longer be a diverse creative soil but rather a small group of large players who can afford high thresholds, corresponding to weakened local R&D capabilities, compressed high-skilled employment space, and an industrial ascent path that has been cut short before it could mature.

From Montevideo to Panama: Companies Pushed Towards Overseas Registration

In Sobral’s view, this high entry collateral of $100,000 is not just a capital threshold but a signal with a “discriminatory threshold” effect: small teams, please detour. Information awaiting verification indicates that he and some industry participants are concerned that such a design will directly push the company’s registration location to jurisdictions like Panama or the U.S.—the development team continues to sit in a shared office in Montevideo writing code, but the legal entity and license are tied to an overseas mailbox. For those familiar with the Latin American market, this is not unfamiliar: registering projects in low-threshold overseas jurisdictions while primarily serving local users has long been a common operating model, only it used to happen more in the “gray area,” and now is glaringly pushed into a “rational choice” by this high collateral.

The association’s warning points to a deeper cost: when businesses “leave” Uruguay on paper, tax claims and regulatory grips flow away with them. Income and profits are settled in Panama or U.S. accounts; what Uruguay can see may only be some outsourcing contracts and personal income tax, with the tax base fragmented, leaving regulators with limited administrative cooperation and indirect information to piece together local crypto activities aimed at residents. On the same day, a U.S. House of Representatives member proposed the PARITY Act, attempting to open a path for compliant businesses through a clear tax framework for digital assets, which sharply contrasts with Uruguay’s draft centered around high collateral and a one-size-fits-all threshold: the former is competing for businesses' tax residency and compliance willingness, while the latter is being questioned for pushing companies towards regulatory arbitrage of “registered outside, operated inside.” Whether Uruguay adjusts the $100,000 collateral and risk classification design will largely determine whether Montevideo continues to act as a regional compliance headquarters or becomes a “remote backend” providing manpower and market for companies under foreign licenses.

The Same Day in Washington: Another Signal from the PARITY Act

Also on May 30, the lens shifted to Washington, as U.S. House Representatives introduced a new bill named PARITY. Different from the $100,000 collateral figure in Montevideo, this bill aims to respond to compliance disputes by improving the tax framework for digital assets and deliberately emphasizes bipartisan support, trying to bring issues that were scattered across enforcement guidelines and case discretion back into a predictable tax structure. For American legislators, the tool taken out from the toolbox is tax law provisions, not a unified threshold saying “$100,000.”

This contrast was presented to industry participants in Uruguay on the same day: on one side is the draft framework reportedly requiring businesses to pay as much as $100,000 for entry collateral, without distinguishing custodial and non-custodial risks; on the other side is the PARITY route, centered around the design of tax rules rather than simply raising entry collateral or a unified threshold. The former seeks to filter subjects by raising the cost of entry, while the latter aims to delineate a compliance path by clarifying tax obligations. For major global economies trying to find a balance between “regulation” and “support,” this means that they each choose different regulatory tools and priorities, and whether Uruguay ultimately adheres to high thresholds or shifts towards more refined rule designs will directly impact whether it is seen as a higher-threshold marginal market in the regional compliance landscape or an institutional option that can compete with places like Washington.

The Tug-of-War Between Regulation and Innovation: How Much Room for Maneuver Does Uruguay Still Have?

Returning to this draft itself, the controversy always focuses on two points: first, according to CriptoNoticias, the entry collateral of up to $100,000 pushes regulatory costs directly to the doorsteps of enterprises, which is tantamount to “denying entry” for thinly capitalized local startups; second, as criticized by Juan Manuel Sobral, the text does not differentiate risks between custodial and non-custodial services, treating completely different models with a one-size-fits-all approach, which lays clear cracks in regulatory logic. According to some media reports, the unified regulatory framework being advanced in Uruguay is still in the public consultation or discussion phase led by the Central Bank of Uruguay. The final version of the draft and the timeline for formal passage has not yet been determined; it is said that the Blockchain Association has submitted critical reports and alternative solutions to regulators, but the specific content and degree of adoption remain a black box. This means that whether the $100,000 collateral will be reduced, and whether custodial/non-custodial classifications will be formally written into risk levels, still has considerable variability. If Uruguay chooses to adhere to a high threshold path at this point, it is very likely to be seen as an option “costlier but not clearer” at the regional level; businesses will naturally vote with their feet, moving their registration and tax base to jurisdictions they consider more predictable. Conversely, whether the next draft revision adjusts collateral design, introduces more refined risk classifications, and whether regulators are willing to turn Sobral’s public questioning into text-level amendments will determine whether Uruguay is a marginal player written in the footnotes of this regional industrial competition or can be regarded as one of the rigorous and accessible institutional versions.

Join our community, let’s discuss and become stronger together!
Onchain Telegram group: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
Onchain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin Onchain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。