Bank of Italy: Stablecoins Are Not Always Cheaper
A Banca d’Italia experiment found that sending USDC between Italy and five other countries cost anywhere from 0.30% to 8.96%, depending largely on how users entered and exited the crypto market.
Key Takeaways
The July 2026 research paper compared the cost and speed of sending 200 USDC across ten routes connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and Japan.
Researchers Alberto Di Iorio, Enrica Di Stefano, Michele Mascioli and Giorgio Trebeschi conducted real transfers rather than relying only on advertised fees.
USDC was cheaper than conventional alternatives on several routes and more expensive on others. The results did not support a general claim that stablecoin remittances are always cheaper.
The paper was published in Banca d’Italia’s Markets, Infrastructures, Payment Systems series. Its conclusions represent the authors’ views rather than an official position of the institution.
The Blockchain Was Rarely the Expensive Part
The onchain stage averaged only 0.4% of the amount sent. The largest charges appeared before USDC was transferred or after it reached the recipient.
The UAE-to-Italy route cost 8.95%. A credit-card surcharge of 3.8% contributed to a combined funding and USDC purchase cost of 6.17%.
Argentina to Italy was slightly more expensive at 8.96%, including 5.36% spent while purchasing USDC. The calculation was also affected by the gap between Argentina’s official peso exchange rate and the rates available through crypto markets.
Using the more market-oriented Dólar MEP rate would have reduced the estimated cost to approximately 8.5%. The route would still have been expensive, but the difference shows how local currency conditions can alter the headline result.
The full transfer process included several possible charges:
- Depositing local currency into an exchange account.
- Purchasing USDC through the selected platform.
- Transferring the tokens to another exchange.
- Converting USDC into the recipient’s currency.
- Withdrawing the money into a bank account.
Card surcharges, exchange spreads and fixed withdrawal fees had a large effect because each transfer was worth only $200.
The Result Could Reverse With the Direction
When compared with Wise on the same bilateral routes, USDC was cheaper in three corridors and more expensive in four. One additional route was unavailable for a complete comparison.
The two Brazil transfers show why direction mattered:
- Brazil to Italy: USDC cost 2.21%, compared with approximately 4.68%–4.89% through Wise.
- Italy to Brazil: USDC cost 2.70%, compared with 2.20% through Wise.
Both transfers used the same stablecoin, but the platforms, funding methods, spreads and withdrawal arrangements differed at each end.
The UAE-to-Italy route showed an even larger gap. USDC cost 8.95%, compared with approximately 1.02%–1.03% through Wise, with the card-funding surcharge accounting for much of the difference.
The relevant comparison is therefore the full route available to a specific sender and recipient, not the blockchain fee in isolation.
Local Payment Rails Decided the Speed
The blockchain stage took less than 15 minutes in seven of the eight directly comparable corridors.
End-to-end transfers finished in under 20 minutes when both sides had access to fast local payment systems, including Brazil’s PIX and Argentina’s Transferencias 3.0.
Transfers involving South Africa took one to two business days because deposits and withdrawals depended on standard bank processing.
USDC moved quickly between the exchanges, but it could not shorten the time required to fund an account or withdraw money through slower banking rails.
The Experiment Covered One Type of Stablecoin Transfer
The study tested a closed transfer route: fiat currency entered through a centralized exchange, moved as USDC onchain and was converted back into local currency through another platform.
This setup reflects the experience of users relying on Binance, Kraken, BitOasis and similar providers, but it also places stablecoins inside KYC, banking and card-payment systems that generate much of the total cost. The experiment therefore measures the full regulated transfer chain, not blockchain settlement in isolation.
Stablecoins can move differently in markets facing inflation, capital controls or limited banking access. Users may trade through local peer-to-peer markets, cash agents or merchants that accept digital dollars directly, allowing the funds to remain outside the domestic banking system.
These routes may avoid some exchange spreads and withdrawal fees, but they introduce less predictable pricing, weaker consumer protection and greater dependence on individual counterparties or informal agents.
The paper also considers an “open sandwich,” where the recipient keeps the stablecoin rather than converting it into local currency. This can reduce costs when the recipient wants dollar exposure or can spend the token directly.
The trade-off is that the payment remains in a digital asset rather than settled local fiat. The recipient retains exposure to issuer, custody, wallet-access and liquidity risks until the stablecoin is spent or converted.
The findings therefore apply most directly to fiat-to-USDC-to-fiat transfers conducted through centralized platforms. They do not measure the cost or risk profile of peer-to-peer markets, agent networks or digital-dollar economies where stablecoins remain in circulation.
- Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or payment advice. Stablecoin transfer costs vary by provider, corridor, currency, transaction size, funding method and withdrawal route.
- Methodology: The article uses Banca d’Italia’s July 2026 paper “Are Stablecoins Efficient for Remittances? Evidence from a Mystery Shopping Exercise.” The researchers conducted transfers of 200 USDC on March 24 and 26, 2026 across ten corridors connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE and Japan. The exercise used centralized exchanges, primarily Ethereum for the onchain stage, and comparisons with World Bank remittance data and Wise simulations. The paper states that its authors’ views do not necessarily represent Banca d’Italia.
Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.
