My analysis of the Bank of Italy's fresh study, conducted using the "mystery shopper" method, leads to an unexpected conclusion: stablecoins do not provide a sustainable price advantage over traditional transfer channels. This calls into question one of the crypto industry's main narratives.
The Bank of Italy conducted a large-scale experiment, testing $200 USDC transfers across ten real-world routes. Destinations included Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. The results were mixed and highly instructive for anyone who believes in the "cheap transfers revolution."
The Real Cost of Blockchain Transfers
Total costs per transaction ranged from 0.3% to 9% of the amount. This spread completely overshoots the UN's target of reducing the cost of international transfers to below 3% by 2030. At the same time, the on-chain transfer itself accounted for only 0.4% of total expenses on average. The main costs came from topping up an account on an exchange, currency conversion, and cash disbursement to the recipient.
The route from the UAE to Italy is telling. A bank transfer was unavailable to the sender, so payment had to be made by credit card. A 3.8% fee was charged for topping it up, causing the total cost of the transaction to jump to nearly 9%. It is these "seams"—fiat on-ramps and off-ramps—that eat up all of the blockchain's savings.
Comparison with Traditional Services
The global average transfer fee, according to the World Bank, is 6.4%—noticeably higher than the UN's 3% target. However, when compared with the Wise service on the same routes, stablecoins turned out to be cheaper on only three routes and more expensive on four. There can be no talk of an unconditional benefit.
Speed also did not become an advantage. Where instant payment systems operate, such as Brazil's Pix or Europe's TIPS, funds arrived in less than 20 minutes. In South Africa, where such infrastructure does not exist, stablecoin transfers took one to two business days—the same as a regular bank transfer.
The Regulatory Paradox
Separately, the researchers examined global regulation of stablecoins. Europe's MiCA is recognized as one of the most well-developed models, and Circle remains the main provider of stablecoins compliant with legal requirements. However, strict rules also carry costs: in Japan, tighter requirements did not reduce demand but merely "drove" users into unregulated wallets.
My conclusion: the technology still relies on the very institutions it seeks to bypass. Until stablecoins solve the problem of cheap fiat entry and exit, their advantage will remain theoretical. Investors and users should look more carefully at real costs rather than marketing promises of "instant and free" transactions.