Stablecoins promise to make international payments faster, cheaper and more accessible, but how much does it really cost to turn euros or other currencies into digital currency, send it halfway around the world and convert it back into usable money?
The answer is not from a company in the sector, but from a study published by Bank of Italy, which put the entire payment chain to the test. The result dampens both enthusiasm and the most skeptical judgments: stablecoins can be very efficient, but they are not always so. To transfer the same sum, the overall observed cost fluctuates from 0.30% to almost 9%.
The real test of the Bank of Italy
The study uses the method of mystery shopping: the researchers behaved like normal customers and carried out real operations, rather than limiting themselves to theoretical simulations.
They were transferred 200 USDC along ten routes connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and Japan. USDC is a stablecoin issued by Circle and designed to hold a value equal to one dollar. It was chosen because it is available on the regulated platforms of all the countries involved in the experiment.
The transfer was followed from start to finish: depositing the money on the exchange, purchasing the USDC, moving it to the blockchain, selling the stablecoin and withdrawing it in the currency of the destination country. It is precisely this complete vision that makes the study particularly interesting.
Costs from 0.30% to almost 9%
The difference between one route and another is enormous. The transfer from Italy to Argentina recorded a cost of 0.30%, while in the reverse operation, from Argentina to Italy, the cost rose to8.96%.
Sending USDC from Italy to Brazil cost 2.70%, while from Brazil to Italy it cost 2.21%. On the Italy-United Arab Emirates route the cost reached 7.20% and on the opposite route 8.95%. Italy-South Africa stopped at 4.58%, while the reverse path reached 5.44%.
The particularly favorable result towards Argentina must be read with caution. The calculation uses the official exchange rate, while parallel dollar quotations continue to exist in the country, including the so-called “dólar crypto”. Part of the apparent advantage therefore derives from the particular Argentine currency system and not only from technological efficiency.
The blockchain is not the most expensive part
Perhaps the most surprising discovery concerns blockchain: that’s not where the cost is concentrated.
The on-chain transfer weighs on average just 1.5%. 0.4% of the amount sent. In one of the operations from Brazil to Italy it cost only 0.01%. Most expenses arise before and after: when traditional money is transformed into stablecoin and when the stablecoin is converted back into the currency that the recipient can spend.
It is the so-called “stablecoin sandwich”. At its core is fast and economical digital transfer; at the two extremes there are banks, cards, exchanges and currency exchanges. Trading fees, fixed deposit and withdrawal costs, and exchange rate spreads can quickly erode blockchain’s advantage.
Stablecoins or traditional services: which is better
The comparison with Wise, a digital platform specialized in international transfers and conversions between currencies, gives a picture without an absolute winner. USDC was cheaper in three routes and more expensive in four.
From Brazil to Italy, the stablecoin cost 2.21%, versus a range of 4.68% to 4.89% estimated for Wise. From Italy to South Africa, USDC stood at 4.58%, compared to just over 5.1% for the traditional service.
The cost from Japan to Italy was 1.6%, apparently competitive, but the process was too complex for a normal consumer.
The situation is reversed in the Emirates. To send money from Italy, Wise applied a cost of around 2.25%, compared to 7.20% for the stablecoin. From the Emirates to Italy, the comparison was even starker: just over 1% with Wise and almost 9% with USDC. The simulations and transactions were carried out on different dates, so the comparison is indicative, but demonstrates that the convenience depends on the individual route and the method used.
From 20 minutes to two days
Even on the speed front, the blockchain passes the test: in seven out of eight routes the digital transfer was completed in less than 15 minutes, but the speed of the entire operation once again depends on the traditional systems used to load and withdraw money.
In Italy, Brazil and Argentina, where instant payment infrastructures such as TIPS, PIX and Transferencias 3.0 operate, the complete process was completed in less than 20 minutes. In South Africa, where ordinary transfers were necessary, it took one to two working days.
The conclusion is almost paradoxical: stablecoins work best when they can rely on already efficient national banking systems. Digital payments and traditional infrastructures are not necessarily competitors, but they can become complementary.
What changes for those who have to send money abroad
The study does not reject stablecoins. Rather, it demonstrates that there is no universal convenience. Before sending money you need to consider the route, the exchange, the payment system, the cost of conversion and the method with which the recipient will withdraw the sum.
The core technology is already fast and cheap. The real obstacle remains the connection between the digital world and traditional currency. If stablecoins could be used directly to pay for goods, rent or school fees, avoiding the final conversion, their advantage could increase significantly.
The authors themselves urge caution: the test concerns only one stablecoin and a limited number of countries, but its experimental nature makes the work valuable. For the first time, a large central bank doesn’t just discuss the promises of stablecoins: it actually tries to use them and measures how much money and how much time the recipient actually has left.
