The Bank of Italy debunked the myth of savings: stablecoins are not cheaper than traditional transfers
The Central Bank of Italy conducted a large-scale empirical study that called into question one of the crypto industry's main theses about the advantages of stablecoins. During an experiment carried out using the "mystery shopper" method, the regulator tested real money transfers via USDC and compared them with traditional banking channels. The results were unexpected: stablecoins do not provide a sustainable price advantage.
Field tests: from Italy to Japan
Specialists from the Bank of Italy carried out 200 transfers in USDC along ten real routes connecting the Apennines with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan. Each operation was analyzed across five key stages — from topping up an account on an exchange to dispensing cash to the recipient. Total costs ranged from a modest 0.3% to a shocking 9% of the transfer amount.
The most telling case was the route from the UAE to Italy. Due to the lack of direct banking services, the sender had to top up the account with a credit card, the fee for which amounted to 3.8%. As a result, the final cost of the operation ballooned to nearly 9%, completely negating any technological savings.
Comparison with traditional and fintech services
Interestingly, the blockchain transfer itself cost on average only 0.4% of the amount. The main expenses fell on the "entry" and "exit" points — topping up the exchange account, currency conversion, and withdrawing funds — which are still tied to classic banks and payment infrastructures. When compared with the Wise service, stablecoins turned out to be cheaper on only three out of seven routes, indicating the absence of a systemic advantage.
The contrast in speed is especially interesting. In Brazil and Europe, where the instant systems Pix and TIPS operate, transfers via USDC took less than 20 minutes. However, in South Africa, where such infrastructure is absent, a stablecoin transaction took one to two business days — exactly the same as a regular bank transfer. Speed is determined not by technology, but by the local payment ecosystem.
The regulatory paradox
The study also touched on the topic of regulation. Europe's MiCA is already recognized as one of the most well-developed models, and Circle remains the main provider of compliant stablecoins. However, stricter rules in Japan did not reduce demand, but merely "drove" users into unregulated wallets. Easing requirements for platforms remains an open question for lawmakers.
My conclusion: stablecoins are not yet a "silver bullet" for cross-border payments. Their main value lies in technological innovation, but real savings depend on the maturity of local payment systems and the willingness of banks to integrate with crypto infrastructure. Until this happens, it is premature to talk about a revolution in money transfers.