Key Takeaways
Stablecoins have long been promoted as the future of cheap cross-border payments, but a new Bank of Italy study suggests the blockchain itself is rarely the expensive part of the transaction.
In a real-world mystery shopping exercise, researchers executed 200 USDC transfers across 10 payment corridors connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and Japan.
Rather than relying on simulations, the team completed actual transfers and measured end-to-end costs and settlement times.

The results challenge one of crypto’s most common narratives. Total remittance costs ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9% of the amount transferred, while blockchain fees accounted for only a small portion of the overall expense. Instead, the highest costs came from converting fiat into stablecoins and back again.
+81
+76
+217
The researchers found that the efficiency of stablecoin remittances depends less on blockchain technology and more on the financial infrastructure surrounding it.
Every transaction passed through five stages: funding an exchange account, purchasing USDC, transferring tokens onchain, converting USDC back into local currency, and withdrawing funds into a bank account. The first two stages form the on-ramp, while the final two make up the off-ramp. These fiat conversion steps accounted for most of the cost and delay, not the blockchain transfer itself.
Across the eight comparable payment corridors, total costs ranged from 0.30% for transfers from Italy to Argentina to 8.96% in the reverse direction. Italy-to-Brazil transfers cost 2.70%, while Italy-to-the-UAE transfers cost 7.20%. The researchers said such wide differences make it impossible to claim that stablecoins consistently offer cheaper remittances than traditional services.
The blockchain leg itself typically accounted for only a fraction of total expenses, reinforcing the conclusion that exchanges, foreign-exchange spreads, and banking infrastructure determine most of the final price.
The study reached a similar conclusion on settlement times.
Where both countries supported modern instant payment systems, transfers were settled in under 20 minutes. Corridors that relied on conventional banking infrastructure often required one or even two business days, despite the blockchain transaction completing much faster. Researchers concluded that domestic payment systems, rather than distributed ledger technology, remain the primary determinant of end-to-end speed.
To ensure consistency, the researchers selected USDC because it is widely available across all jurisdictions included in the study and transferred the tokens over Ethereum, despite acknowledging that networks such as Solana and Tron generally offer lower fees. They noted that Ethereum was chosen because it was the only blockchain supported by all participating exchanges and because onchain fees contributed only marginally to total costs.
[Y-M-L]
The findings do not dismiss stablecoins as a remittance technology. Instead, they suggest the industry’s next challenge lies outside the blockchain.
The Bank of Italy argues that regulatory frameworks, exchange competition, and tighter integration between crypto platforms and domestic payment systems will play a greater role in reducing costs than improvements to blockchain throughput alone.
The report also notes that jurisdictions with instant payment systems and stronger banking connectivity tend to deliver faster, cheaper transfers than those with fragmented financial infrastructure.
The research arrives as governments around the world adopt stablecoin legislation and payment companies accelerate the adoption of digital dollars. While blockchains continue to offer fast settlement, the Bank of Italy’s experiment suggests that making remittances meaningfully cheaper will require fixing the traditional financial rails that still sit at both ends of every stablecoin transaction.