Stablecoin remittances hit 9% in Bank of Italy test

A Bank of Italy study found USDC remittances can cost nearly 9% depending on the corridor.

The Bank of Italy tested real USDC transfers across 10 corridors and found a spread that would make any payments team wince. The cheapest route cost 0.30%, while the priciest reached 8.96%, and the result depended far more on fiat rails than on the blockchain itself.

Researchers moved 200 USDC at a time between Italy and Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and Japan. They also compared those transfers with Wise simulations for the same $200 amount, which gives the study a useful real-world reference point even if it is not a perfect apples-to-apples test.

What the Italy test actually measured

This was a mystery-shopping study, which means the researchers used the payment rails the way a customer would. That matters because remittance marketing often focuses on the blockchain transfer fee and ignores the rest of the bill: exchange spreads, card funding charges, withdrawal fees, and foreign-exchange conversion.

The study’s biggest finding is simple. The blockchain leg was cheap, but it was also only one piece of the trip. The average onchain cost came in at 0.4%, while the total cost across corridors ranged from almost nothing to nearly 9%.

That gap explains why stablecoin advocates often overstate the case when they talk about remittances. If the crypto transfer itself is inexpensive but the entry and exit points are expensive, the user still pays a lot.

• Italy to Argentina: 0.30%
• Argentina to Italy: 8.96%
• Brazil to Italy: 2.21%
• Italy to Brazil: 2.70%
• South Africa to Italy: 5.44%
• Italy to South Africa: 4.58%
• UAE routes: 7.20% and 8.95%

The Argentina numbers need a bit of context. The Bank of Italy said the low outbound cost partly reflected the gap between Argentina’s official exchange rate and its market rate, so the cheap result was not just about better crypto plumbing. In other words, local currency distortions can make a stablecoin transfer look cheaper than it really is.

Speed was better, but only when the fiat side cooperated

On speed, the picture was more encouraging. The onchain portion took less than 15 minutes in seven of eight directly comparable corridors. When the endpoints used instant payment systems, the full transfer could finish in under 20 minutes.

That happened with Italy’s TIPS, Brazil’s Pix, and Argentina’s Transferencias 3.0. South African routes were slower, taking one or two business days because ordinary bank transfers delayed the fiat leg.

“Stablecoins can be useful in some specific use cases, but they are not the solution to all the problems of cross-border payments,” said Fabio Panetta, Governor of the Bank of Italy.

Panetta’s line matters because it matches the study’s actual results. Stablecoins can move value quickly onchain, but the user experience still depends on banks, exchanges, and local payout systems. If any one of those pieces is slow, the whole remittance slows down with it.

Japan was a special case. The Japan-to-Italy transfer cost 1.6%, but regulatory limits required an unhosted wallet and fragmented transactions, which made a clean timing comparison impossible. The reverse route cost 1.3% without finishing the final off-ramp.

Stablecoins beat Wise in only part of the sample

The Bank of Italy compared its USDC transfers with Wise on the same $200 amount and found a mixed result. USDC was cheaper in three routes: Italy to Argentina, Italy to South Africa, and Brazil to Italy. It was more expensive in four, including both UAE routes and Italy to Brazil.

That is the part of the story crypto marketing usually skips. A stablecoin rail is not automatically cheaper than a mainstream transfer service. It can win in one corridor and lose badly in the next.

Here is the comparison in plain terms:

• Wise remained cheaper in several corridors where fiat funding or cash-out costs were high.
• USDC worked better where instant local payment systems were available at both ends.
• The UAE routes were expensive because card funding and withdrawal charges piled up.
• The study used different dates for the USDC and Wise transfers, so the comparison is directional rather than exact.

The authors were careful about scope. They said the paper covered one stablecoin and a limited number of transactions, so the findings cannot be generalized to every provider, corridor, or amount. That caution is justified. Remittances are local, messy, and shaped by regulation as much as by technology.

What this means for the next wave of cross-border payments

The Bank of Italy’s results line up with a broader point that keeps showing up in payments research: cheap settlement is not the same thing as cheap remittance. A token can move in seconds while the user still waits on banking rails, compliance checks, or a bad FX spread.

The paper also echoes a March 2026 Bank for International Settlements study that blamed weak interoperability, fragmented standards, and institutional differences for much of the pain in cross-border payments. That is a polite way of saying the hard part is still the plumbing around the blockchain.

Industry examples point in the same direction. Borderless.xyz has reported competitive stablecoin pricing across 260 business-payment corridors, while a Hyundai trial moved $20,000 between the U.S. and Mexico in about seven minutes. Those cases show that stablecoins can work well, but only when the operational setup is friendly.

The practical takeaway is pretty clear: if you want cheaper remittances, focus on the on-ramp and off-ramp first, then the chain. A faster blockchain does help, but it will not rescue a corridor with expensive card funding, weak payout rails, or poor FX execution.

If central banks keep testing stablecoins corridor by corridor, the next useful benchmark will not be whether a token is fast. It will be whether the full transfer, from local bank account to local bank account, consistently beats the best existing rail on both cost and time.

Until that happens, stablecoins are a strong option in some routes and an overpriced detour in others.