Contrary to the widespread belief that cryptocurrencies radically reduce the cost of cross-border payments, empirical testing demonstrates the opposite. The Bank of Italy conducted a large-scale study using the "mystery shopper" method, the results of which call into question the price advantage of stablecoins over traditional channels. This is an important signal for a market accustomed to viewing digital assets as a panacea for high fees.
Real Numbers: From 0.3% to 9%
As part of the experiment, the regulator initiated transfers of 200 USD Coin (USDC) across ten real routes connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. Total costs per transaction ranged from 0.3% to 9% of the amount. This spread directly intersects with the UN target, which aims to reduce the cost of international transfers to below 3% by 2030, but does not guarantee its achievement.
An analysis of five key stages of each transaction—from funding an account on an exchange to cash disbursement to the recipient—revealed an interesting pattern. The blockchain transfer itself proved extremely cheap, averaging only 0.4% of total costs. However, the main expenses were tied to peripheral processes: account funding, currency conversion, and withdrawals. These stages remain dependent on traditional banks and exchanges, negating the technological efficiency of the distributed ledger.
Speed and Comparison with Wise
The route from the UAE to Italy is telling. Due to the unavailability of a bank transfer for the sender, a credit card had to be used, with a 3.8% fee charged for funding it, pushing the final cost to nearly 9%. Meanwhile, in countries with developed instant payment infrastructure, such as Brazil's Pix network and the European TIPS service, funds arrived in less than 20 minutes. In South Africa, where such infrastructure is absent, stablecoin transfers took one to two business days—exactly the same as a regular bank transfer.
A comparison with the Wise service on the same routes also revealed no clear winner: stablecoins were cheaper on three routes but more expensive on four. With an average global fee of 6.4% (according to World Bank estimates), digital assets do outperform traditional channels almost everywhere except the UAE, but unconditional benefit cannot be claimed.
Particular attention deserves the analysis of regulatory impact. The European MiCA framework is recognized as one of the most well-developed, and since its launch, Circle remains the primary provider of compliant stablecoins. However, stricter rules in Japan did not reduce demand but merely drove users to unregulated wallets. Whether this shift will persist if requirements for platforms are relaxed remains an open question for lawmakers.
My conclusion: the market overestimates the "revolutionary" nature of stablecoins in the payments sector. As long as the critical mass of costs falls on fiat gateways, talk of radical cost reduction is premature. Real competition will only begin when digital assets can provide a full cycle—from entry to exit—without the involvement of traditional intermediaries.