# Bank of Italy: USDC remittances cost 0.3%–9% > Banca d’Italia’s mystery-shopping study of 200 USDC remittances found total costs from 0.30% to nearly 9%, with on- and off-ramps (not the blockchain) driving the bill. - **Source:** https://ptycoin.com/en/posts/2026-08-02-bank-italy-stablecoin-remittance-study/ - **Published:** 2026-08-02 - **Category:** News - **Author:** Mateo - **Tags:** stablecoins, remittances, payments, brazil, argentina, latam - **Also published in:** [Español](https://ptycoin.com/es/posts/2026-08-02-bank-italy-stablecoin-remittance-study/) --- **Banca d’Italia** published a [July 2026 mystery-shopping paper](https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/mercati-infrastrutture-e-sistemi-di-pagamento/approfondimenti/2026-086/N.86-MISP.pdf) that sent **200 USDC** across ten corridors and found total remittance costs from **0.30% to nearly 9%** of the amount transferred. The on-chain leg averaged about **0.4%**. Fiat funding, exchange spreads, and cash-out fees did most of the damage. The paper, *Are Stablecoins Efficient for Remittances?*, is Markets, Infrastructures, Payment Systems No. 86, by Alberto Di Iorio, Enrica Di Stefano, Michele Mascioli, and Giorgio Trebeschi. Independent write-ups from [CoinDesk](https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/08/01/bank-of-italy-research-suggests-stablecoins-aren-t-necessarily-cheaper-for-remittances) and [crypto.news](https://crypto.news/stablecoin-remittances-hit-9-in-bank-of-italy-test/) matched the same core numbers after the study circulated at the end of July. ## How the experiment worked Researchers acted as ordinary retail customers. They funded exchanges, bought USDC, moved it on a public chain, sold it, and withdrew local currency. That is the full “stablecoin sandwich”: fiat in, on-chain transfer, fiat out. Design choices from the paper: - **Instrument:** USDC only (Circle’s dollar stablecoin), chosen for regulated access in the EU and Japan under local crypto rules. - **Ticket size:** **200 USDC**, aligned with the World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide (RPW) retail benchmark. - **Hub:** Italy, with bidirectional corridors to **Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, and Japan**. - **Dates:** live transfers on **24 and 26 March 2026**. - **Chain (baseline):** Ethereum. - **Venues:** Binance and Kraken on the Italian side; **Ripio** (Argentina), **Foxbit** (Brazil), **BitOasis** (UAE), and **Valr** (South Africa) on the spokes. Each transfer was split into five phases: funding, purchase, on-chain transfer, sale, and withdrawal. That breakdown is what lets the paper show *where* money and time go, not only the headline total. ## The cost spread, corridor by corridor Across eight fully comparable corridors (Japan is treated separately), total costs ran from **0.30%** (Italy → Argentina) to **8.96%** (Argentina → Italy). Other published corridor totals include Italy → Brazil at **2.70%**, Brazil → Italy at **2.21%**, Italy → South Africa at **4.58%**, South Africa → Italy at **5.44%**, and both UAE routes near **7–9%**. The on-chain transfer was almost always the cheap middle. It averaged roughly **0.4%** and hit **0.01%** on Brazil → Italy. Funding cards, trading spreads, and withdrawal fees dominated. Argentina needs a caution label. The rock-bottom Italy → Argentina print used the official BCRA retail FX rate. Parallel market rates (including the rate implicit in USDC/ARS trades) still sit above that official print. The paper says the apparent bargain partly reflects that FX gap, not pure blockchain efficiency. The reverse Argentina → Italy run was expensive in large part because buying USDC with pesos was costly under the same measurement frame. Against [World Bank RPW country averages](https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/mercati-infrastrutture-e-sistemi-di-pagamento/approfondimenti/2026-086/N.86-MISP.pdf), USDC undercut outbound averages for Brazil (**2.21%** vs **9.96%**), South Africa, and Italy’s outbound average. The UAE was the clear exception: traditional RPW averages looked cheaper than the card-heavy USDC path the researchers could complete. Versus **Wise** simulations on the same bilateral pairs and amount, USDC was cheaper on three comparable routes (including Brazil → Italy at **2.21%** vs Wise’s roughly **4.7–4.9%**) and more expensive on four (including Italy → Brazil at **2.70%** vs Wise’s **2.20%**). The authors stress different sample dates and limited observations: this is an indicative bench, not a universal ranking. ## Speed is a payments-infrastructure story On-chain settlement finished in under **15 minutes** on seven of eight main corridors. End-to-end time told a different story. Where domestic instant rails funded and cashed out the exchange: - Italy (**TIPS**) - Brazil (**Pix**) - Argentina (**Transferencias 3.0**) …full bank-to-bank-style settlement landed in under **20 minutes**. South Africa, relying on ordinary bank transfers at the edges, took **one to two business days**. The blockchain was not the bottleneck; the local banking last mile was. Japan could not be compared cleanly. Retail access to dollar stablecoins and outbound transfer rules forced an unhosted-wallet intermediate step and transfer fragmentation. Nominal costs looked low (**about 1.3–1.6%** on the routes tested), but the workflow was not ordinary retail remittance UX. ## What that means for dollar rails people already use Latin America is not a footnote in this paper. Argentina and Brazil are two of the five destination legs, and the authors cite literature putting Latin America among the regions with the highest cross-border stablecoin flows relative to GDP. For freelancers, families, and SMEs who already move dollars as USDC or USDT, the practical read is blunt: 1. **Cheap chain ≠ cheap remittance.** The fee you see on a blockchain explorer is usually the small slice. 2. **Corridor and venue matter more than the ticker.** The same 200 USDC can land under 3% or near 9% depending on exchange, funding method (bank transfer vs card), and which way the money is flowing. 3. **Instant local rails are the real speed unlock.** Pix-side Brazil and Transferencias 3.0 Argentina made the full path competitive on time; slow bank edges erased the on-chain advantage. 4. **Keeping the stablecoin (no final off-ramp)** can change the economics, especially where people prefer dollar balances over local cash. That “toast” model is outside the full sandwich the bank measured for remittance-style end-to-end cost. None of this is a verdict that stablecoins “don’t work” for cross-border money. It is evidence that they do not *automatically* beat money-transfer operators once you pay to get in and out of crypto. The paper’s own conclusion: no systematic cost advantage; performance is corridor-specific; on/off-ramp frictions and domestic payment quality are first-order. ## Takeaway Banca d’Italia put 200-USDC remittances through real exchanges and real corridors and got a messy, useful map: costs from about **0.3% to 9%**, on-chain fees mostly tiny, and speed gated by Pix-class local rails rather than block confirmation. For readers who already send or receive dollar stablecoins between Europe and Latin America, treat exchange spreads, funding method, and cash-out fees as the product decision, not the gas line. This is research on payment cost structure, not a recommendation to use or avoid any particular coin, corridor, or app. --- ## Keep reading - [How to plan gas so your stablecoins stay spendable](https://ptycoin.com/en/posts/2026-07-28-gas-planning-native-fees-stablecoins/index.md): USDT can land in a wallet and still be unspendable. You need the chain's own coin for fees. This guide shows how to keep TRX, ETH, SOL, and similar gas ready before you need it. - [How to pick the right network for USDT and USDC](https://ptycoin.com/en/posts/2026-07-21-pick-right-network-usdt-usdc/index.md): USDT and USDC exist on many chains. Wrong-network sends are a top permanent-loss risk. Use this checklist to match asset, network, fees, and wallet support before you transfer. - [Meru: Stellar USDC wallet for LatAm freelancers](https://ptycoin.com/en/posts/2026-07-31-meru-stellar-usdc-wallet-latam/index.md): Meru is a Stellar-based non-custodial USDC wallet built for LatAm freelancers: inbound US and EU bank rails, a Rain-issued Visa card, and optional Blend yield. --- Source: PTYcoin — https://ptycoin.com/en/posts/2026-08-02-bank-italy-stablecoin-remittance-study/. Free to read and cite with attribution to ptycoin.com. AI-usage terms: https://ptycoin.com/en/ai-usage/