Inside the Bank of Italy’s testing lab, researchers tracked how money moved. They watched remittances in stablecoins flow, sometimes fast, sometimes slow. Some went for less than a cent per dollar. Others charged nearly 9 cents for each. The range, from 0.3% to 9%, told a story.
Transfers that settled in under 20 minutes used instant payment systems. Without them, transfers took one or two business days. The Bank used the World Bank’s global average of 6.65% as a benchmark. In most corridors, stablecoins came out cheaper.
But not all. Only three of seven payment corridors saw stablecoins undercut Wise, a traditional money transfer company. That gap matters. Wise is a common comparison point. If stablecoins can’t beat it, the cost argument weakens.
How to make stablecoins faster and cheaper
The report says local payment systems matter. If a country lacks fast transfer rails, stablecoins can’t shine. They need the roads to move smoothly. The authors argue best gains may come when stablecoins don’t convert back to fiat. Spend them directly, for fees or goods, and the cost benefits grow bigger.
Regulation shapes user behavior
In places where crypto is banned, demand doesn’t vanish. Users find other ways. They go offshore. Unregulated. The rules, the authors argue, can either help or hinder. Restrictive laws complicate things for everyday users. They can’t just send money easily.
This matters now. The EU enforces MiCA. The US has the GENIUS Act. Both aim to manage crypto and stablecoin payments. Meanwhile, the stablecoin market hits $307 billion, up about 16% in the last year.