A July 2026 research paper published by Banca d'Italia found that stablecoin-based remittances are not consistently cheaper than conventional transfer methods, with most costs arising from funding, conversion, and withdrawal stages rather than onchain transactions. The findings come amid growing interest from payment companies, banks, and policymakers in whether dollar-pegged digital assets can reduce the cost of cross-border person-to-person transfers, a market the World Bank estimates exceeds $600 billion annually in flows to low- and middle-income countries alone. Researchers Alberto Di Iorio, Enrica Di Stefano, Michele Mascioli, and Giorgio Trebeschi conducted real transfers of 200 USDC across ten corridors connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and Japan on March 24 and 26, 2026. The paper, titled "Are Stablecoins Efficient for Remittances? Evidence from a Mystery Shopping Exercise," was published in Banca d'Italia's Markets, Infrastructures, Payment Systems series. Its conclusions represent the authors' views and do not necessarily reflect an official position of the institution.

Blockchain Costs Were Marginal

The onchain stage averaged only 0.4% of the amount sent. The largest charges appeared either before USDC was transferred or after it reached the recipient. The full transfer process involved several layers of potential cost: depositing local currency into an exchange account, purchasing USDC, transferring tokens to another exchange, converting USDC into the recipient's currency, and withdrawing funds to a bank account.

Card surcharges, exchange spreads, and fixed withdrawal fees had a disproportionate impact because each transfer was valued at only $200. This transaction size aligns with the World Bank's standard benchmark for measuring global remittance costs, which the institution has tracked for over a decade as part of the G20 commitment to bring average fees below 5 percent.

The UAE-to-Italy route cost 8.95% overall. A credit-card surcharge of 3.8% contributed to a combined funding and USDC purchase cost of 6.17%. The Argentina-to-Italy corridor was slightly more expensive at 8.96%, with 5.36% spent on purchasing USDC alone. That calculation was also affected by the gap between Argentina's official peso exchange rate and the rates available through crypto markets. Applying the more market-oriented Dólar MEP rate would have reduced the estimated cost to approximately 8.5%.

Transfer Direction Changed the Outcome

When compared with Wise on the same bilateral routes, USDC was cheaper in three corridors and more expensive in four. One additional route was unavailable for a complete comparison.

The two Brazil corridors illustrated why direction mattered significantly. For transfers from Brazil to Italy, USDC cost 2.21%, compared with approximately 4.68%–4.89% through Wise. In the reverse direction, from Italy to Brazil, USDC cost 2.70%, while Wise charged 2.20%.

Both transfers used the same stablecoin, but the platforms, funding methods, spreads, and withdrawal arrangements differed at each end. The UAE-to-Italy route showed an even wider gap: USDC cost 8.95%, compared with approximately 1.02%–1.03% through Wise, with the card-funding surcharge accounting for much of the difference.

The findings indicate that the relevant comparison is the complete route available to a specific sender and recipient, not the blockchain fee considered in isolation.

Local Payment Rails Determined Speed

The blockchain stage took less than 15 minutes in seven of the eight directly comparable corridors. End-to-end transfers finished in under 20 minutes when both sides had access to fast local payment systems, including Brazil's PIX and Argentina's Transferencias 3.0.

Transfers involving South Africa took one to two business days because deposits and withdrawals depended on standard bank processing. USDC moved quickly between exchanges, but the onchain speed could not accelerate the time required to fund an account or withdraw money through slower banking rails.

Study Scope: Regulated Fiat-to-Stablecoin-to-Fiat Transfers

The study tested a closed transfer route: fiat currency entered through a centralized exchange, moved as USDC onchain, and was converted back into local currency through another platform. This setup reflects the experience of users relying on providers such as Binance, Kraken, and BitOasis, but it also places stablecoins within KYC, banking, and card-payment systems that generate much of the total cost.

The researchers noted that stablecoins can move differently in markets facing inflation, capital controls, or limited banking access. Users in such environments may trade through local peer-to-peer markets, cash agents, or merchants that accept digital dollars directly, allowing funds to remain outside the domestic banking system. These routes may avoid certain exchange spreads and withdrawal fees, but they introduce less predictable pricing, weaker consumer protection, and greater dependence on individual counterparties or informal agents.

The paper also examined an "open sandwich" scenario, where the recipient retains the stablecoin rather than converting it into local currency. This can reduce costs when the recipient seeks dollar exposure or can spend the token directly. The trade-off is that the payment remains in a digital asset rather than settled local fiat, leaving the recipient exposed to issuer, custody, wallet-access, and liquidity risks until the stablecoin is spent or converted.

The findings therefore apply most directly to fiat-to-USDC-to-fiat transfers conducted through centralized platforms. They do not measure the cost or risk profile of peer-to-peer markets, agent networks, or digital-dollar economies where stablecoins remain in circulation.

Methodology

The researchers conducted transfers of 200 USDC on March 24 and 26, 2026, across ten corridors connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. The exercise used centralized exchanges, primarily Ethereum for the onchain stage, and drew comparisons with World Bank remittance data and Wise simulations. The paper states that its authors' views do not necessarily represent Banca d'Italia.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or payment advice. Stablecoin transfer costs vary by provider, corridor, currency, transaction size, funding method, and withdrawal route.