Bank of Italy finds no consistent stablecoin remittance edge

The Bank of Italy finds no consistent cost or speed edge for stablecoin remittances over traditional channels, a new study shows. Fiat conversion fees and local payment rails—not blockchain costs—drove most of the gap. That matters for anyone betting crypto will cut cross-border transfer bills overnight.

Key Takeaways

• Researchers ran 200 USDC remittances across 10 corridors linking Italy with Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the UAE and South Africa.
• Exchange and currency-conversion fees dominated costs; blockchain transaction fees were only a small share.
• End-to-end costs ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, settling in under 20 minutes where instant rails existed, or one to two business days otherwise.
• Stablecoin transfers beat the World Bank’s 6.65% global average in most corridors, but undercut Wise in only three of seven comparable routes.
• Authors say bigger gains come if stablecoins can be spent without converting back to local fiat.

What did the Bank of Italy remittance study actually find?

According to Cointelegraph’s report on the research, stablecoin-based remittances did not deliver a systematic cost or speed advantage versus traditional payment channels. Fiat on- and off-ramp frictions accounted for most costs and transfer delays.

The experiment compared end-to-end costs and settlement times for USDC transfers against conventional remittance services. Geography mattered: the same crypto rail produced very different bills and wait times once local conversion and payment infrastructure entered the picture. For more coverage like this, see our Fintech & Crypto Alerts hub.

Why do fiat ramps still dominate stablecoin remittance costs?

Researchers found exchange fees and currency conversion made up most of the expense. On-chain transaction fees were a minor slice of the total. That flips a common marketing claim—that blockchain settlement alone makes remittances cheap—on its head.

Across the sample, total costs swung from 0.3% to nearly 9% by corridor. Using the World Bank’s reported global average remittance cost of 6.65% as a benchmark, stablecoin transfers were cheaper in most corridors examined. They were less expensive than Wise, however, in only three of seven comparable corridors.

Settlement speed tracked local rails more than block times. Transfers completed in less than 20 minutes where instant payment systems were available, and took one to two business days where they were not. The study concluded that investment in domestic instant payment infrastructure could improve how competitive stablecoin cross-border payments look in practice.

Could direct stablecoin spending change the remittance math?

The authors argued the biggest economic upside appears when recipients no longer need to reconvert into local currency. If stablecoins could pay for goods, services, rents or school fees directly, they wrote, advantages of stablecoin-based transfers would be substantially higher.

Regulation also shaped efficiency. Prohibitionist regimes did not fully suppress demand and instead pushed users toward offshore or unregulated channels, while overly restrictive rules raised operational complexity for retail users. The findings land as the EU’s MiCA framework and the US GENIUS Act set clearer rules for crypto assets and payment stablecoins. DefiLlama data cited in the report puts the stablecoin market at about $307 billion, up roughly 16% over the past year.