Bank of Italy Study: Stablecoins Show No Clear Edge Over Wise

Bank of Italy researchers tested 200 USDC transfers across 10 bidirectional payment corridors and found no consistent cost or speed advantage for stablecoins over traditional remittance channels. The study came out on July 31, 2026.

The corridors linked Italy with Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the UAE and South Africa. The main finding is surprising for the crypto market. Most of a transfer's cost comes not from blockchain fees but from fiat conversion costs and the quality of local payment infrastructure.

What the Bank of Italy actually tested

The research team compared 200 USDC transactions with classic remittance services on the same routes. They measured two things: the full end-to-end cost of a transfer and the time it took funds to reach the recipient.

The choice of these five countries was not random. Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the UAE and South Africa have very different payment infrastructure and very different regulatory attitudes toward crypto, so the results paint a broader picture rather than a single isolated case.

• Italy-Brazil: developed banking systems on both ends, moderate transfer cost.
• Italy-Argentina: high inflation and currency controls complicate the fiat off-ramp.
• Italy-Japan: one of the most expensive pairs due to strict conversion requirements.
• Italy-UAE: developed digital infrastructure, one of the cheapest routes.
• Italy-South Africa: a limited choice of local payment rails pushes up cost.

The methodology matters because most earlier stablecoin studies relied on theoretical network fee calculations rather than real transfers through real banks and exchanges on both ends. That approach produces less flashy but far more reliable numbers.

Transfer cost depends on more than the blockchain

USDC transfer costs in the study ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9% depending on the corridor. Speed varied too. Where instant payment systems exist, funds arrived in under 20 minutes. Where they don't, transfers took one to two business days.

The researchers' main finding is simple. The blockchain fee itself accounts for a tiny share of the cost. Most of the money goes toward currency conversion and cashing out of crypto into fiat on the recipient's end, not toward running the USDC network itself.

For comparison, traditional remittance services on the same corridors showed a similar spread in speed: from a few minutes on pairs with developed instant infrastructure to several days where banks still rely on correspondent accounts.

USDC versus Wise: a win in only three of seven corridors

Researchers compared USDC costs against the World Bank's global average of 6.65%. In most corridors, the stablecoin came out cheaper than the world's average remittance cost.

But comparing against a specific service told a different story. Of the seven routes where USDC could be directly compared with Wise, the stablecoin won in only three. In the remaining four, the classic fintech service stayed the cheaper option.

That is a meaningful nuance for anyone actually choosing how to send money. Comparing against the abstract global average of 6.65% makes stablecoins look favorable, while comparing against a specific, well-optimized service like Wise is far less clear-cut. In other words, the stablecoin beats the market average easily, but it doesn't always beat the best specific competitor on a given route.

Regulation shapes how efficient transfers are

The researchers also examined the role of regulation. Strict prohibition regimes did not suppress demand for stablecoins. Instead, they pushed users toward offshore and unregulated platforms. Overly cautious regulatory frameworks, on the other hand, made the process harder for ordinary users without any real safety benefit.

The study landed just as the EU's MiCA framework took effect and the US GENIUS Act came into force, governing crypto assets and payment stablecoins respectively. Both frameworks shape the rules that make transfers like these possible in major jurisdictions in the first place.

Prohibitionist policy, the researchers argue, does not eliminate demand for stablecoins. It merely pushes it underground. Users denied legal access to USDC or USDT simply find workarounds through offshore platforms that offer neither consumer protection nor transparent pricing. The authors call this an inefficient outcome of a ban. Demand does not disappear, only oversight of it does.

What this means for Ukrainian labor migrants

For Ukrainians, these figures are not abstract. Millions of Ukrainians abroad regularly send money to family back home, and USDT or USDC have long been one option alongside classic remittance services. According to the National Bank of Ukraine, private transfers from Ukrainians abroad add up to billions of dollars every year, so even a small difference in fee percentage noticeably affects the final amount. The Bank of Italy study shows that the advantages of stablecoins are real, but not automatic.

The final cost of such a transfer still depends on how cheaply someone can exchange USDT for hryvnia on the way out, not just on the network fee. That is exactly the point where comparing rates across different exchangers matters for the amount a family actually receives.

In practice, the transfer chain has several steps: buying USDT or USDC with foreign currency, the network transaction itself, and converting the stablecoin back into hryvnia in Ukraine. The Bank of Italy study shows the first and third steps cost far more than the second, so the real savings come from the entry and exit fees, not from worrying about the cost of the network transaction itself.

The study's main takeaway

"If stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy, for goods and services, rents, or school fees, without reconversion into local fiat currency, the economic advantages of stablecoin-based transfers would be substantially higher."

- from the Bank of Italy study, published July 31, 2026

For now, most users still convert stablecoins back into fiat, so that final step remains the bottleneck. Over the coming years, whether USDC or USDT beats Wise or a bank transfer will depend less on blockchain technology and more on how cheaply and quickly local payment rails work in a given country.

The researchers also acknowledge that the infrastructure edge can shift over time. If more countries roll out their own instant payment systems, the gap between stablecoins and traditional transfer channels will likely keep narrowing rather than growing, contrary to what crypto enthusiasts often predict.

For an everyday user, the practical takeaway is simple. Before sending money, it pays to compare actual rates on a specific route and through a specific exchanger rather than general slogans about cheap crypto transfers, since those numbers, not marketing promises, decide how much money the recipient actually gets.