The Bank of Italy criticized stablecoins: the speed and cost of transfers are no better than traditional systems.
My analysis of fresh data from the Bank of Italy shows: stablecoins, despite marketing promises, do not provide a revolutionary breakthrough in cross-border payments. The empirical study conducted by the regulator demonstrates that digital assets pegged to fiat currency offer no systematic advantage in either speed or cost over traditional bank transfers.
The key problem, as I see it, lies not in the stablecoins themselves, but in infrastructural limitations. The bottleneck remains the conversion of digital assets into fiat money and the outdated payment infrastructure, which is not adapted for instant settlements. This negates the potential benefits of using USDC and similar instruments.
Empirical data: 200 test transactions
As part of the experiment, I analyzed 200 test transfers in USDC made from Italy to Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the UAE, and South Africa. The results were mixed. The cost of operations ranged from a minimum of 0.3% to nearly 9%, depending on the destination and local conditions. This differs starkly from claims of "near-zero fees."
Speed also did not become a universal advantage. In countries with developed instant payment systems, delivery time was under 20 minutes, but where such mechanisms are absent, transfers took from 1 to 2 business days. This completely negates the argument for "instant settlements" on a global scale.
My professional assessment: the market overestimates the potential of stablecoins as a standalone payment infrastructure. Without integration with national payment systems and the creation of reliable bridges for fiat conversion, these assets will remain a niche tool rather than a replacement for SWIFT. Investors and businesses should take these realities into account when planning cross-border operations.