My detailed analysis of a new Bank of Italy study conducted using the "mystery shopper" method showed that stablecoins do not provide a sustainable price advantage over traditional remittance channels. This calls into question one of the crypto industry's main narratives.
The regulator tested transfers of 200 USDC across ten real routes connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. The results were mixed and highly instructive.
Hidden Costs: Fees Eat Up the Savings
Total costs per transfer ranged from 0.3% to 9% of the amount. This spread completely overshoots the UN target of reducing the cost of international transfers to below 3% by 2030. The key issue is that the blockchain transfer itself averaged only 0.4% of total costs. The bulk of the money went to account top-ups, currency conversion, and cash disbursement to the recipient.
These stages are still tied to traditional banks and exchanges, not decentralized infrastructure. The route from the UAE to Italy is telling: a bank transfer to the sender was unavailable, forcing payment by credit card. A 3.8% fee was charged for the top-up, causing the total transaction cost to soar to nearly 9%.
For comparison: according to World Bank data, the global average remittance fee is 6.4%, notably higher than the UN's 3% target. But when comparing stablecoins against the average fee for each specific country, they proved cheaper than traditional channels on all routes except the UAE. The Bank of Italy also compared USDC with the Wise service: stablecoins won on price in three corridors and lost in four. The conclusion is clear — unconditional savings cannot be claimed.
Speed Hits a Wall with Local Infrastructure
Transaction times also varied widely. Where instant payment systems operate, such as Brazil's Pix network or Europe's TIPS service, funds arrived in under 20 minutes. But in South Africa, no such infrastructure existed: stablecoin transfers took one to two business days — the same as a regular bank transfer.
These results complicate the picture in which stablecoins are supposedly quietly displacing banking payment systems. The technology still relies on the very institutions and systems it seeks to bypass. Separately, the researchers examined global regulation of stablecoins, calling Europe's MiCA one of the most well-developed frameworks. However, strict rules carry costs: tighter requirements in Japan did not reduce demand but merely "drove" users into unregulated wallets.
My verdict: stablecoins are not a revolution in cross-border payments, but rather an evolutionary tool that merely optimizes certain stages. Until they solve the "last mile" problem and shed their dependence on banking infrastructure, talk of radically cheaper transfers is premature. Investors should factor this into their assessment of the long-term potential of projects in this niche.