Bank of Italy Finds Stablecoins Offer No Clear Cost Advantage for Remittances

Hidden Fees Erode Stablecoin Savings

In a mystery‑shopping test conducted in July 2026, the Bank of Italy examined how much users pay to move money abroad using popular stablecoins versus traditional transfer services. The experiment compared fees, foreign‑exchange spreads, and banking‑rail costs across several corridors, revealing that stablecoin routes often match or exceed the price of conventional methods.

The central bank recruited a panel of volunteers who sent €1,000 to recipients in the United States, the Philippines, and Brazil. Researchers recorded every charge, from blockchain network fees to the conversion spread applied by fiat‑on‑ramp providers. Traditional banks and money‑transfer operators were used as benchmarks. Results showed that, after accounting for all hidden costs, the total expense of stablecoin transfers ranged from 0.9 % to 1.4 % of the amount, comparable to the 0.8 %‑1.5 % range charged by legacy services. „Our analysis shows that the perceived cost advantage of stablecoins evaporates once all layers of the transaction are considered,” said Dr. Lucia Bianchi, lead researcher at the Bank of Italy.

The experiment highlighted three cost components that neutralize any headline‑level savings. First, exchange fees imposed by fiat‑on‑ramp platforms added an average of 0.3 % to each transaction. Second, foreign‑exchange spreads—often quoted as a modest 0.2 %—proved higher when converting stablecoins back into local currency. Third, the reliance on traditional banking rails for final settlement introduced additional processing charges, especially in jurisdictions with strict AML requirements. When combined, these elements produced a total cost that rivaled, and sometimes surpassed, the fees charged by banks and established remittance firms. The Bank of Italy’s report noted that the variance in cost was largely driven by the choice of stablecoin and the specific on‑ramp provider, rather than any intrinsic advantage of the digital asset itself.

Are Stablecoins Still Viable for Cheap Money Transfers?

Despite the findings, the study does not dismiss stablecoins as a tool for cross‑border payments. It points out that the technology can still offer speed and transparency benefits, especially in regions where banking infrastructure is limited. However, the research urges regulators and industry participants to address the opaque fee structures that currently mask true costs. „If stablecoins are to fulfill their promise of low‑cost remittances, the ecosystem must standardize pricing and reduce reliance on legacy banking channels,” Dr. Bianchi added. The bank plans to monitor market developments and collaborate with fintech firms to explore more cost‑effective settlement pathways.

The implications of the Bank of Italy’s analysis could reshape expectations among migrants and diaspora communities that have turned to stablecoins for cheaper transfers. Policymakers may consider tighter oversight of on‑ramp services, while fintech innovators might seek to streamline conversion processes. As the market evolves, the balance between speed, cost, and regulatory compliance will determine whether stablecoins can truly deliver on their low‑fee promise.

Frequently Asked Questions

What stablecoins were tested in the experiment? The study focused on the most widely used U. S.‑dollar‑pegged tokens, including USDC, USDT, and BUSD, as they dominate cross‑border remittance flows.

Why do traditional banks still compete on price? Banks benefit from established correspondent‑bank networks and bulk foreign‑exchange contracts, which keep their spreads low despite higher nominal fees.

Will regulatory changes affect stablecoin costs? Potential regulations that require greater transparency and lower conversion margins could reduce hidden fees, making stablecoins more competitive for remittances.