Contrary to popular belief, stablecoins have not become a "silver bullet" for international transfers. My analysis of a recent Bank of Italy study, conducted using the "mystery shopper" method, shows that using USDC for cross-border transactions does not provide a sustainable price advantage over traditional banking channels.
Numbers that sober you up
The regulator tested transfers of 200 USDC across ten real routes connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. Final costs ranged from 0.3% to 9% of the amount — a spread that completely overshoots the UN target of 3% by 2030.
The key takeaway: the blockchain transfer itself costs pennies — on average 0.4% of total expenses. The main costs arise at the "entry" and "exit" points: funding the exchange account, currency conversion, and withdrawing funds to the recipient. These stages are still controlled by banks and exchanges, not by decentralized infrastructure.
The UAE — Italy route is telling. Due to the unavailability of bank transfers, the sender had to fund the account with a credit card, with a fee of 3.8%, which inflated the final cost to nearly 9%. This is a vivid example of how infrastructure limitations eat up all the efficiency of stablecoins.
Comparison with Wise and tradition
When compared to the World Bank's global average fee of 6.4%, stablecoins do indeed look cheaper on all routes except the UAE. However, in the battle with the Wise service, the picture is already mixed: USDC won on price in three directions and lost in four. There is no question of any systemic victory.
Transaction speed also did not become a revolution. Where domestic instant payment systems work, such as Brazil's Pix or Europe's TIPS, funds arrive within minutes. In South Africa, however, a stablecoin transfer took one to two business days — exactly the same as a regular bank payment.
My conclusion: the technology still parasitizes on the legacy infrastructure it is supposed to replace. Regulatory burden, including MiCA, only amplifies this effect, pushing users into unregulated wallets.
As an expert, I see here not a verdict on stablecoins, but a pointer to a growth point. Until issuers and exchanges solve the "last mile" problem — cheap fiat on-ramps and off-ramps — stablecoins will remain a niche tool for crypto enthusiasts, not a mass alternative to banks. Investors should take this into account when assessing the long-term potential of projects focused on remittances.