A mystery-shopping experiment released by Banca d’Italia in July 2026 has delivered a nuanced reality check to claims surrounding crypto-based international money transfers. According to the study, using USD Coin (USDC) for cross-border remittances does not systematically beat traditional transfer channels on either speed or cost.
Researchers conducted real-world tests executing $200 transfers across ten corridors connecting Italy with Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and Japan. Total end-to-end transaction costs fluctuated widely across these routes, ranging from a low of 0.30% to nearly 9.00% of the transferred amount.
On-Chain Speed vs. Off-Ramp Friction
The study revealed a sharp divergence between pure blockchain efficiency and the broader fiat infrastructure needed to complete a real-world transfer. Moving USDC on-chain proved consistently cheap, averaging a mere 0.4% across transactions. However, the vast majority of expenses stemmed from non-blockchain steps, including exchange purchases, deposit funding methods, withdrawal fees, and foreign-exchange conversions.
Corridor mechanics heavily dictated the total expense and processing time. The Italy-to-Argentina transfer recorded the lowest total cost at 0.30%, though researchers noted this result was influenced by local market exchange rate discrepancies rather than pure blockchain efficiency alone. In stark contrast, sending funds from Argentina to Italy reached 8.96%, making it the most expensive route analyzed.
Transfers involving Brazil saw costs of 2.21% inbound to Italy and 2.70% outbound. Routes connecting South Africa with Italy ranged between 4.58% and 5.44%, while both United Arab Emirates corridors proved among the highest at 7.20% and 8.95% due to steep debit card funding and withdrawal surcharges. The Japan-to-Italy corridor registered a 1.60% cost, but strict local regulations mandated unhosted wallet usage and fragmented steps, preventing a direct timing comparison.
Complete settlement finished in under 20 minutes when fast domestic payment systems, such as Italy’s TIPS, Brazil’s Pix, or Argentina’s Transferencias 3.0m were integrated on both ends. Conversely, routes relying on standard bank transfers in markets like South Africa extended settlement times to one or two business days.
Benchmark Comparisons and Institutional Takeaways
When benchmarked against Wise simulations for equivalent $200 transfers, USDC emerged cheaper in only three instances: Italy to Argentina, Italy to South Africa, and Brazil to Italy. Wise proved less expensive in four routes, including both UAE corridors and Italy-to-Brazil.
The findings align with central bank perspectives, including past assessments from Bank of Italy Governor Fabio Panetta and research from the Bank for International Settlements. Central bankers argue that stablecoins are not a universal solution for cross-border payment friction. Instead, policymakers emphasize that upgrading domestic instant-payment infrastructure and interlinking national fast-payment systems directly offer a more sustainable path toward lowering global remittance costs.
