Bank of Italy data complicates the "stablecoins = cheap remittances" claim
A recent Bank of Italy study reached a straightforward conclusion: stablecoins can settle quickly, but they are not automatically cheaper for remittances. In mystery-shopping tests across 10 corridors, total costs ranged from 0.30% to 8.96%.
That spread captures the debate. Some routes beat the World Bank benchmark of 6.65%, which supports the case for stablecoins in certain corridors. But the same data also shows routes that were as expensive as, or more expensive than, traditional options.
The cost advantage, when it exists, sits outside the blockchain leg
The mechanics are clear: most costs came from exchange purchases, funding methods, withdrawals and foreign-exchange conversion. One reporting of the study put the blockchain leg at only 0.4% of total cost. In other words, stablecoins can still offer fast on-chain settlement without delivering low end-to-end remittance costs if fiat entry and exit remain expensive.
Quick Backtesting Tool
Why stablecoin remittances still look uneven across corridors
The Bank of Italy did not prove that stablecoins never save money. They showed that savings are not automatic. Stablecoins were cheaper than the World Bank global average of 6.65% in many corridors, but only cheaper than Wise in three of seven comparable corridors. Speed also depended on local infrastructure: transfers settled in less than 20 minutes where instant payment systems were available and one to two business days where they were not.
On-ramps, off-ramps, and FX still drive the economics
Across 200 USDC transfers across 10 corridors, the pattern was consistent: the blockchain portion was a small share of total expense, while exchange purchases, funding methods, withdrawals and foreign-exchange conversion produced most of the expense. That means the full flow from cash funding, to stablecoin, across the chain, and back through an off-ramp into local payout, is where costs accumulate.
That is also why the stablecoin sandwich matters. When the recipient must reconvert to fiat, the payment re-encounters many of the same frictions that legacy cross-border systems have long struggled with. The Bank of Italy's own implication is that the biggest gains may appear when stablecoins can be spent directly without reconversion.
Corridor direction and local FX conditions changed the math
The results were not uniform, and some routes require caution in interpretation. The Italy-to-Argentina transfer was the cheapest at 0.30%, while Argentina-to-Italy reached 8.96%. The study warned that the low outbound Argentina result partly reflected differences between the country's official and market exchange rates, not blockchain efficiency alone.
Other bidirectional pairs also showed asymmetries:
- Brazil-to-Italy: 2.21% versus 2.70% in the opposite direction
- South Africa-to-Italy: 5.44% versus 4.58% in the opposite direction
- Two UAE routes: 7.20% and 8.95%, partly because of card funding and withdrawal fees
The takeaway is not that stablecoins fail as a remittance story. It is that funding choices, FX spreads, and local payout infrastructure can dominate the economics. The real competitive edge is likely to go to flows that compress the cash-in and cash-out steps rather than to the blockchain layer alone.
What matters for investors: rails and ramps, not the slogan
If most of the cost still sits at the fiat boundary, then the more durable investment angle is the stack that controls issuance, distribution, and cleaner access points. Even so, the evidence still shows no systematic cost advantage for stablecoin remittances in the Bank of Italy test. That makes near-term marketing around cheaper remittances premature.
The long-term case is about infrastructure, not one corridor's fee math
The broader bull case does not rely on remittances alone. Stablecoins already processed $28 trillion in real economic volume in 2025, and adjusted volume is projected to reach $719 trillion by 2035. That supports a longer-term view of stablecoins as payments and settlement infrastructure, not just a niche remittance shortcut.
Regulation may also shape who captures that value. The GENIUS Act framework for payment stablecoins defines authorized payment stablecoin issuers and sets reserve requirements. In practice, that could push flow toward compliant balance sheets, cleaner custody, and regulated access points.
So the balanced read is simple: the remittance economics are still corridor-dependent, but the infrastructure story can remain valid if stablecoins keep moving deeper into payments, issuance, and enterprise distribution.
