Bank of Italy study says stablecoin remittances are not always cheaper

A Bank of Italy study published on 1 August 2026 found that stablecoin remittances are not systematically cheaper than conventional money transfers once the full path from bank account to wallet and back into local currency is counted. That matters because the cost story around stablecoins has often focused on blockchain transfer fees, while the real bill usually comes from exchange spreads, cash-in, and cash-out.

The research, covered by CoinDesk and discussed in a companion video, used mystery shopping across 10 international remittance corridors and tracked transfers of 200 USDC from Italy to destinations including Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. The headline finding is straightforward: the token transfer itself is rarely the expensive part. As the article notes, "fiat on- and off-ramps accounting for most of the cost" was the key driver of the total price.

What the study changes for operators

For payments teams, the practical lesson is that stablecoins should be evaluated as an end-to-end payment rail, not as a cheap blockchain hop. If a business needs to move value from fiat into stablecoins, then out again into local currency, the exchange rate, withdrawal route, and recipient cash-out method can matter more than the on-chain transfer itself. That is especially relevant for remittance providers, marketplaces, payout platforms, and finance teams comparing settlement options across corridors.

The study also found wide variation in both cost and speed. End-to-end costs ranged from roughly 0.3% to almost 9%, depending on corridor and service provider. Settlement times ranged from around 20 minutes where domestic instant payment systems supported withdrawals to as long as two business days when recipients relied on conventional bank transfers. In other words, the same stablecoin workflow can look efficient in one corridor and expensive in another.

Where the friction actually sits

The operational limitation is not the blockchain network itself. According to the study summary, gas fees were only a negligible share of the total cost. The bigger issue was the sequence around the transfer: converting euros into USDC, moving the token, then converting back into local currency through exchanges or banking networks. The practical response for operators is to model each leg separately, monitor corridor-level pricing, and avoid assuming that a low network fee means a low total cost.

That is also where treasury and payout tooling becomes important. Businesses that settle across fiat and digital assets need clear records of conversion points, explicit settlement rules, and visibility into where value is being held at each stage. Radom’s crypto conversion workflows are relevant here for teams that need to move between supported assets and settle in the asset their business needs, but the larger point is broader: the cheapest rail on paper is not always the cheapest rail in production.

What to watch next

The next question is whether stablecoin providers, exchanges, and payout platforms respond by narrowing spread, simplifying cash-out, or improving local settlement access. If they do, the economics could improve quickly in corridors where fiat conversion is the main cost. If they do not, businesses will keep treating stablecoins as one option among several, rather than a default remittance shortcut.

For now, the Bank of Italy research is a useful reminder for finance and operations teams: compare total settlement cost, not just transfer cost. In cross-border payments, the expensive part is often everything around the exchange.