Banca d'Italia Study Finds Stablecoins Fast but Not Cheaper for Remittances

Banca d’Italia’s July 2026 mystery-shopping study delivers a reality check on stablecoin remittances: they can be fast on-chain, but they don’t automatically beat traditional services on price or end-to-end speed. What the bank tested - Researchers sent real transfers of 200 USDC across 10 corridors linking Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and Japan. - The study recorded total remittance costs ranging from 0.30% to 8.96% and found the blockchain leg itself averaged only about 0.4% of the total. - Most expenses came from exchange purchases, funding methods, withdrawals and foreign-exchange conversion. Banca d’Italia concluded stablecoins showed “no systematic cost advantage” over traditional channels. Costs by corridor (200 USDC transfers) - Italy → Argentina: 0.30% (cheapest) - Argentina → Italy: 8.96% (most expensive) - Brazil → Italy: 2.21% - Italy → Brazil: 2.70% - South Africa → Italy: 5.44% - Italy → South Africa: 4.58% - Two UAE routes: 7.20% and 8.95% (high due in part to card funding and withdrawal fees) - Japan routes: Japan → Italy cost 1.6% but had regulatory complications; Italy → Japan cost 1.3% but did not complete the final off-ramp Key timing findings - The on-chain settlement portion took under 15 minutes in seven of eight directly comparable corridors. - Full end-to-end settlement depended on local banking rails used to fund exchanges and withdraw fiat. - Transfers routed through instant payment systems (Italy’s TIPS, Brazil’s Pix and Argentina’s Transferencias 3.0) finished in under 20 minutes. - South Africa routes took one or two business days because standard bank transfers slowed the fiat endpoints. - Japan was complicated by rules requiring unhosted wallets and fragmented flows, making direct timing comparisons impractical. Comparisons and caveats - Banca d’Italia compared the USDC transactions to Wise (simulated) transfers for the same $200 amount. USDC was cheaper on three routes (Italy → Argentina, Italy → South Africa, Brazil → Italy) and more expensive on four (including both UAE routes and Italy → Brazil). - The researchers warned the transfers and Wise simulations occurred on different dates, and that the World Bank benchmarks were indicative rather than strictly comparable. - The paper tested a single stablecoin (USDC) and a limited set of transactions and providers, so its findings “cannot be readily generalized” across all providers, tokens or corridors. Broader context - The study reinforces remarks from Banca d’Italia Governor Fabio Panetta that stablecoins may solve frictions in select corridors but aren’t a universal fix for costly remittances; regulators should prioritize improving domestic payment infrastructure and cross-border links between fast-payment systems. - A March 2026 BIS paper reached similar conclusions: weak interoperability, fragmented standards and institutional differences—not blockchain settlement alone—are major barriers to cheaper cross-border payments. Industry activity and next steps - Private deployments continue to make the opposite claim in some cases: Borderless.xyz reported competitive stablecoin pricing across 260 business-payment corridors in Q2; Hyundai moved $20,000 between the U.S. and Mexico in about seven minutes in a trial; SBI Remit partnered with Fasset to build stablecoin remittance rails. - These industry examples don’t directly contradict the central-bank experiment because they differ by transfer size, business model and endpoints. - Banca d’Italia calls for broader testing: more tokens, a wider set of providers, varied transaction sizes and dates, and full disclosure of exchange spreads, withdrawal costs and local payout times to get a clearer picture of stablecoins’ true remittance potential. Bottom line: Stablecoins can deliver fast on-chain settlement and are promising in specific corridors, but real-world cost and speed depend heavily on exchanges, funding/withdrawal mechanics, FX spreads and local banking rails—so blockchain alone isn’t a silver bullet for cheaper cross-border payments.