My analysis of a new study conducted using the "mystery shopper" method shows that stablecoins are not a panacea for international transfers. The Bank of Italy conducted a large-scale experiment that calls into question the main argument of cryptocurrency proponents—cost efficiency.
Real numbers: from 0.3% to 9%
During the testing, 200 USDC transfers were made 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 colossal spread. Notably, even the best figures do not guarantee a consistent advantage over traditional channels.
The key problem lies not in the blockchain itself, but in the infrastructure around it. The direct on-chain transfer cost an average of 0.4% of the amount. However, the lion's share of costs came from account funding, currency conversion, and withdrawals. These stages remain tied to banks and exchanges, which charge fees comparable to traditional transfers.
The most telling route was from the UAE to Italy. Due to the unavailability of bank transfers, the sender had to top up a card with a 3.8% fee, inflating the total cost to nearly 9%. For comparison: the global average transfer fee, according to World Bank data, is 6.4%—the UN's target of 3% by 2030 remains unattainable for stablecoins as well.
Speed is not always an advantage
In countries with developed instant payment systems, such as Brazil's Pix or Europe's TIPS, stablecoins lose on speed. Funds arrived in less than 20 minutes, whereas in South Africa, stablecoin transfers took one to two business days—the same as a regular bank transfer.
This study shatters the narrative that stablecoins are automatically cheaper and faster. The technology still relies on the same financial institutions it seeks to bypass. A comparison with Wise is also telling: USDC turned out to be cheaper on only three of seven routes.
My conclusion: until stablecoins solve the "last mile" problem—integration with fiat infrastructure—their advantage will remain situational. Regulatory pressure, including MiCA, only adds costs but does not address the fundamental liquidity issue at entry and exit points. The market needs not new coins, but new bridges between crypto and traditional finance.