My analysis of the latest data from the Bank of Italy leads to an unexpected conclusion that runs counter to the popular narrative about cryptocurrencies. An empirical study conducted by the regulator using the "mystery shopper" method showed that stablecoins, contrary to expectations, do not provide a sustainable price advantage over traditional cross-border transfers.
During the experiment, ten real money transfers of 200 USDC each were made along routes connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. The results were telling: total costs ranged from 0.3% to 9% of the transfer amount.
Hidden costs: conversion fees eat away the benefit
The key finding of my research: the blockchain transfer itself is just the tip of the iceberg. The average cost of the on-chain transaction itself was only 0.4% of the total amount. However, the lion's share of expenses comes from associated stages: topping up an account on an exchange, currency conversion, and the recipient's withdrawal of funds. These operations are still tied to traditional banks and exchanges, which charge fees that negate all the efficiency of the blockchain.
The most striking example is the route from the UAE to Italy. Due to the unavailability of a bank transfer for the sender, a credit card had to be used, and a 3.8% fee was charged for topping it up. As a result, the total cost of the transaction reached nearly 9%, making such a transfer completely uncompetitive.
For comparison: the global average fee for a money transfer, according to the World Bank, is 6.4%. This is noticeably higher than the UN target of 3% by 2030. And although stablecoins did indeed turn out to be cheaper than traditional channels on most routes, their advantage cannot be called absolute—when compared with the Wise service, USDC won on only three out of seven routes, losing on four.
Speed is not always an advantage
Transaction speed also proved to be uneven. Where instant payment systems such as Brazil's Pix or Europe's TIPS operate, funds arrive in less than 20 minutes. However, in countries without developed infrastructure, such as South Africa, stablecoin transfers took one to two business days—exactly the same as a regular bank transfer.
This study once again confirms my long-standing position: stablecoins are not yet a full-fledged alternative to traditional payment systems. Blockchain technology solves only part of the problem, while the "bottlenecks"—onboarding and fiat withdrawal—remain in the hands of the old financial infrastructure. Until this gap is closed, talking about a revolution in money transfers is premature. Regulators and developers should focus on these aspects rather than on popularizing the technology itself.