My analysis of the Bank of Italy's latest report shows that, contrary to expectations, stablecoins have not become a panacea for international money transfers. A practical "mystery shopper" experiment across ten real corridors proved that blockchain savings are often illusory, with the final cost of USDC transactions ranging from 0.3% to 9% of the amount.
This is a serious blow to the narrative of cheap crypto transactions. The Bank of Italy conducted a unique study, testing transfers of 200 USDC through real channels. The corridors linked Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. The results were mixed and highly revealing.
Main costs lie outside the blockchain
The key takeaway from my data analysis: the blockchain transfer itself cost on average just 0.4% of the amount. However, the main expenses arose at the "fiat" stages—topping up an account on an exchange, currency conversion, and withdrawing cash. These operations still pass through traditional banks and exchanges, which charge fees that negate the technology's advantages.
The most telling corridor was from the UAE to Italy. A bank transfer to the sender was unavailable, so a credit card payment was required. The top-up fee was 3.8%, inflating the final cost to nearly 9%. This exceeds the global average remittance fee of 6.4% per World Bank data, although the UN's goal is to reduce this to 3% by 2030.
However, when comparing with traditional channels on a country-by-country basis, stablecoins still proved cheaper on all corridors except the UAE. Compared to the Wise service, USDC won on price in three directions but lost in four. The conclusion is clear: there is no unconditional advantage.
Speed hits infrastructure limits
Timing metrics were also disappointing. In Brazil and Europe, where instant payment systems Pix and TIPS operate, funds arrived in under 20 minutes. But in South Africa, where such infrastructure is absent, stablecoin transfers took one to two business days—exactly the same as a regular bank transfer. The technology is fully dependent on the traditional payment systems it seeks to bypass.
Analysts separately noted that strict regulation, such as Europe's MiCA, does not reduce demand but merely drives users to unregulated wallets. In Japan, tighter rules did not reduce stablecoin usage but only shifted activity into the shadows. Softening requirements for platforms could change this trend, but for now, the question remains open.
My expert assessment: this report is a sobering signal for the market. Stablecoins do not yet solve the problem of expensive transfers; they merely shift costs to other stages of the chain. As long as fiat gateways remain the bottleneck, talk of a revolution in money transfers is premature. Investors should factor this into their assessment of payment protocols' potential.