According to a July 2026 study by Banca d'Italia, stablecoin remittances showed mixed results when tested across 10 USDC corridors linking Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and Japan. The mystery-shopping study recorded total costs ranging from 0.30% to nearly 9%, with researchers executing real transfers of 200 USDC across the various routes. As reported by Banca d'Italia, the blockchain leg averaged only 0.4%, while exchange purchases, funding methods, withdrawals and foreign-exchange conversion produced most of the expense. The study, published as part of the Bank of Italy's "Markets, infrastructures, payment systems" series, took a hands-on approach using actual transfers to measure the complete end-to-end experience, cutting through theoretical claims to get to the lived experience of real remittance senders.
The study revealed significant cost variations by corridor, with the Italy-to-Argentina transfer being the cheapest at 0.30%, while the Argentina-to-Italy route cost 8.96%. According to the research, Brazil-to-Italy cost 2.21% compared with 2.70% in the opposite direction. South Africa-to-Italy cost 5.44%, while Italy-to-South Africa reached 4.58%. The two UAE routes were among the most expensive at 7.20% and 8.95%, partly because card funding and withdrawal charges increased the total cost. The study found that on-chain portion had only a marginal impact on total costs, with the blockchain itself not being the bottleneck. What drives fees is everything surrounding it: acquiring the stablecoin, converting it back to local fiat, and navigating the domestic financial infrastructure at origin and destination.
According to the study, the onchain portion took less than 15 minutes in seven of eight directly comparable corridors. Transfers involving Italy's TIPS, Brazil's Pix and Argentina's Transferencias 3.0 finished in under 20 minutes. However, complete settlement depended heavily on local payment infrastructure quality. Where destination countries have modern instant payment systems in place, the full end-to-end transfer completed in less than 20 minutes. Where those systems are absent and standard bank transfers are required instead, the same process stretched to one or two business days. The study found that on/off-ramp frictions are the primary source of both cost and delay, with each step adding time and expense - intermediaries, exchange spreads, compliance checks, and local banking dependencies. The stablecoin itself contributes little to the settlement gap - the local last mile does.
When compared with Wise simulations for the same $200 amount, USDC was cheaper in three routes: Italy to Argentina, Italy to South Africa and Brazil to Italy. However, as reported by Banca d'Italia, USDC was more expensive in four routes, including both UAE routes and Italy to Brazil. The researchers cautioned that the transfers and Wise simulations occurred on different dates, and described the World Bank comparison as an indicative benchmark rather than a like-for-like test.
The findings highlight what has become one of the industry's biggest blind spots: much of the marketing around stablecoin remittances focuses on the cost of transferring tokens across blockchain networks, where moving digital dollars can cost less than a cent. However, remittance users are not buying blockchain transactions - they are moving money between two bank accounts, often in different currencies. The Bank of Italy notes that stablecoins can reduce costs in specific corridors, while their always-on settlement and programmability remain meaningful advantages over legacy payment rails. The study suggests that stablecoins have solved the problem of moving value across blockchains, but the harder challenge remains getting that value into the hands of someone who simply wants to spend it. As regulated off-ramp providers proliferate under frameworks such as Europe's MiCA regime and domestic instant payment systems become more closely integrated with digital asset infrastructure, competitive pressure could narrow conversion fees, though foreign exchange spreads are likely to remain an unavoidable component of international payments.
