The Central Bank of Italy conducted a large-scale practical study to determine whether stablecoins can truly become a cheap alternative to traditional cross-border transfers. The results were not in favor of digital assets: in most cases, they do not provide a sustainable price advantage, and sometimes they even cost more.
Experiment with real money
Using a "mystery shopper" method, the regulator's analysts carried out 200 real transfers in the USDC stablecoin across ten routes connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. The total cost of operations ranged from 0.3% to 9% of the transfer amount. This directly intersects with the UN's target of reducing the cost of remittances to 3% by 2030.
A breakdown of each stage showed that the blockchain transfer itself cost an average of only 0.4% of the total amount. The main costs arose when topping up an account on an exchange, converting currencies, and withdrawing cash for the recipient. These operations are still tied to traditional banks and payment infrastructures, which stablecoins are precisely trying to bypass.
Where stablecoins lose out
The most illustrative route is from the UAE to Italy. A bank transfer to the sender was unavailable, so a credit card had to be used, with a 3.8% fee charged for the top-up. As a result, the total cost of the transfer reached nearly 9%.
For comparison: the global average fee for transfers, according to World Bank estimates, is 6.4%. However, when comparing stablecoins with traditional channels on a country-by-country basis, USDC turned out to be cheaper only on certain routes. In a direct comparison with the Wise service, stablecoins won on three routes and lost on four.
Speed is not always a plus either
Transaction times also varied significantly. In Brazil and Europe, where instant payment systems Pix and TIPS operate, funds arrived in less than 20 minutes. But in South Africa, a stablecoin transfer took one to two business days—the same as a regular bank transfer.
Separately, the researchers noted that stricter regulation, as in the case of Japanese rules, does not reduce demand for stablecoins but merely drives users into unregulated wallets. This poses a difficult question for lawmakers: how to balance investor protection with maintaining the attractiveness of legal channels.
My conclusion: stablecoins have not yet become the "killer" of traditional transfers. Their advantage is revealed only in countries with weak banking infrastructure, but even there, entry and exit costs eat up all the benefits. As long as fiat "gateways" remain expensive, talking about a revolution in remittances is premature.