A recent study by the Bank of Italy has found that remittances conducted with stablecoins do not deliver a systematic advantage in cost or speed over traditional payment channels. Researchers tested real-world transfers and concluded that the largest expenses and delays stemmed from fiat on- and off-ramp processes, not from blockchain transaction fees.

The experiment involved 200 remittances denominated in USDC across 10 bidirectional corridors linking Italy with Argentina, Brazil, Japan, the United Arab Emirates and South Africa. End-to-end costs and settlement times were measured and compared against conventional remittance services.

Costs Driven by Conversion, Not Blockchain

Total costs for the stablecoin transfers ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, depending on the corridor. Exchange fees and currency conversion accounted for the bulk of expenses, while blockchain fees represented only a minor share, averaging around 0.4% in the sample.

Italy-to-Argentina transfers registered the lowest cost at 0.30%, though researchers noted that the figure partly reflected differences between official and market exchange rates in Argentina. The reverse route from Argentina to Italy reached 8.96%. UAE corridors ranked among the most expensive, at 7.20% and 8.95%, influenced by card funding and withdrawal charges. Brazil routes fell in the middle range, while South African corridors came in at 4.58% and 5.44%.

Against the World Bank’s global average remittance cost of 6.65%, the stablecoin transfers proved cheaper in most corridors examined. Direct comparison with Wise, however, showed a more mixed picture: stablecoin routes were less expensive in only three of seven comparable corridors.

Settlement Speed Tied to Local Payment Rails

Settlement times also varied sharply according to the availability of domestic instant payment systems. Where such infrastructure existed—Italy’s TIPS, Brazil’s Pix and Argentina’s Transferencias 3.0—transfers were completed in under 20 minutes. In corridors relying on standard bank transfers, such as those involving South Africa, settlement stretched to one or two business days.

The on-chain portion itself was typically fast, finishing in less than 15 minutes in most comparable routes. Japan presented additional complications: regulatory constraints required use of an unhosted wallet and fragmented transactions, limiting direct timing comparisons.

Researchers concluded that stablecoin rails and domestic instant-payment systems function as complements rather than substitutes. Improvements in local payment infrastructure would therefore have a greater impact on competitiveness than further reductions in blockchain fees alone.

Regulation and Market Context

The study also examined the role of regulatory design. Prohibitionist approaches did not eliminate demand for stablecoins; instead, they tended to shift activity toward offshore or unregulated platforms. Overly restrictive frameworks increased operational complexity for retail users.

The findings arrive as major jurisdictions implement new rules. The European Union has rolled out its Markets in Crypto-Assets framework, while the United States has enacted legislation governing payment stablecoins. Broader market data show the total stablecoin supply at approximately $307 billion, a rise of roughly 16% over the past year.

The Bank of Italy noted that its experiment covered one stablecoin and a limited set of transactions, so the results cannot be generalized to every provider or corridor. The authors stressed that meaningful gains are more likely to come from better on- and off-ramp services, stronger domestic instant-payment networks, and the ability to spend stablecoins directly without repeated conversion into local currency.