My detailed analysis of the Bank of Italy's recent study, conducted using the "mystery shopper" method, leads to unexpected conclusions: stablecoins do not offer a sustainable cost advantage over traditional remittance channels. This is a serious blow to the narrative of "cheap crypto transactions."
As part of the experiment, 200 real transfers in USDC were made across ten routes connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. The results were extremely uneven: final costs ranged from a modest 0.3% to a hefty 9% of the amount. Such a spread completely undermines the UN's target of reducing the cost of international transfers to below 3% by 2030.
Main costs lie outside the blockchain
The key conclusion I see is that the blockchain transfer itself is only a small part of the costs. On average, the on-chain transaction fee accounted for just 0.4% of the total expenses. Most of the money went toward topping up the account on an exchange, currency conversion, and cash disbursement to the recipient. These stages are still tied to traditional banks and centralized platforms, which charge their own fees.
The route from the UAE to Italy is telling. The sender could not use a bank transfer and was forced to pay by credit card. A 3.8% fee was charged for the top-up, which ultimately inflated the cost of the entire operation to nearly 9%. This is a clear example of how infrastructure limitations wipe out any savings on the blockchain.
Comparison with global trends
For context: the average global remittance fee, according to the World Bank, is 6.4%. This is noticeably higher than the UN's 3% target. However, when comparing with traditional channels for each specific country, stablecoins turned out to be cheaper on all routes except the UAE. Moreover, compared to the Wise service, USDC won on price on three routes but lost on four. There is no question of an unconditional advantage.
Speed also did not prove revolutionary. In Brazil and Europe, where instant payment systems (Pix and TIPS) operate, funds arrived in under 20 minutes. But in South Africa, a stablecoin transfer took one to two business days—exactly the same as a regular bank transfer. The technology still depends on the very institutions it seeks to bypass.
Regulatory paradox
The regulatory aspect deserves special attention. Europe's MiCA remains the most well-developed framework, and since its launch, Circle continues to dominate as the main provider of compliant stablecoins. However, strict rules carry costs: in Japan, tighter requirements did not reduce demand but merely "drove" users into unregulated wallets. Whether this shift will persist if requirements for platforms are relaxed remains an open question for lawmakers.
My assessment: stablecoins are not a panacea but merely a tool whose effectiveness depends on local infrastructure. As long as banks control the entry and exit points for fiat funds, talk of the "death" of traditional transfers is premature. Investors should keep in mind that the real value of such assets will only be unlocked through integration with payment systems, not in isolation from them.