Key Findings on Remittance Costs
Published 8/3/2026, 11:08:36 AM
The Bank of Italy's July 2026 study (Markets, Infrastructures and Payment Systems Paper No. 86) significantly undermines the narrative that stablecoins provide a universal cost advantage for remittances. While the research confirms that blockchain technology is highly efficient for the "middle mile," it concludes that stablecoins show "no systematic cost advantage" over traditional channels once the full end-to-end fiat-to-fiat path is considered [Source: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/08/01/bank-of-italy-research-suggests-stablecoins-aren-t-necessarily-cheaper-for-remittances].
Key Findings on Remittance Costs
The study utilized a "mystery shopping" methodology, conducting 200 USDC transfers across 10 bidirectional corridors (including Italy ↔ Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, UAE, and Japan) [Source: https://www.kucoin.com/news/flash/banca-d-italia-study-finds-stablecoins-fast-but-not-cheaper-for-remittances].
| Metric | Finding |
|---|---|
| Total Cost Range | 0.30% to 8.96% |
| On-Chain Fees | ~0.4% of total cost (average) |
| Comparison to Wise | Stablecoins were cheaper in only 3 of 7 comparable corridors |
| Transfer Speed | Typically <20 minutes (when using instant rails) |
Challenges to the Cost-Advantage Narrative
The research highlights several friction points that prevent stablecoins from being a consistently cheaper alternative to traditional fintech or banking solutions:
- The "Last Mile" Problem: The study found that the majority of costs are concentrated in the fiat-to-crypto and crypto-to-fiat conversion points (on/off-ramps). While the on-chain portion of the transfer is negligible (averaging 0.4% of the total cost), the fees charged by centralized exchanges and payment brokers for currency conversion and liquidity often exceed traditional bank fees [Source: https://www.tradingview.com/news/cointelegraph:38d48ded3094b:0-bank-of-italy-finds-no-consistent-cost-advantage-for-stablecoin-remittances/].
- Corridor Variability: Performance was highly inconsistent. For example, transfers from Italy to Argentina were extremely efficient (0.30% cost) due to local market conditions, whereas transfers from the UAE to Italy reached costs of nearly 9% due to high card-funding fees and exchange spreads [Source: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/08/01/bank-of-italy-research-suggests-stablecoins-aren-t-necessarily-cheaper-for-remittances].
- Competition with Instant Payment Systems: Researchers noted that improvements in remittance costs are more likely to stem from interlinking domestic instant payment systems (like Italy's TIPS and Brazil's Pix) than from blockchain adoption itself [Source: https://www.kucoin.com/news/flash/banca-d-italia-study-finds-stablecoins-fast-but-not-cheaper-for-remittances].
Conclusion
The Bank of Italy study reframes stablecoins as a complementary tool rather than a disruptive replacement for the average user. It suggests that the "cost advantage" is currently a myth for users who require fiat currency at both ends of a transaction, as the savings on blockchain "gas" are swallowed by the frictions of the traditional financial system's entry and exit points [Source: https://www.tradingview.com/news/cointelegraph:38d48ded3094b:0-bank-of-italy-finds-no-consistent-cost-advantage-for-stablecoin-remittances/]. The advantage only becomes clear if the recipient can spend the stablecoin directly without converting it back to local fiat.