Bank of Italy finds stablecoin transfers cost up to 9% due to conversion fees, not blockchain costs
The Bank of Italy found that stablecoin transfers across ten international routes cost between 0.30% and nearly 9% of the amount moved, with on- and off-ramping friction, not blockchain costs, driving most expenses. For freelancers and gig workers who receive roughly 35% of their income in stablecoins, these hidden fees can make wage conversion unaffordable and delay access to funds needed for rent or immediate expenses.
- Bank of Italy mystery shopping test moving $200 across ten corridors found total costs ranging from 0.30% to nearly 9% of transferred amount.
- On-chain transfer fees account for only a marginal share of total cost; on- and off-ramp frictions are the main source of both expense and delay.
- BVNK survey shows freelancers, gig workers and marketplace sellers received roughly 35% of their income via stablecoins, making fee transparency critical.
- 0.30%, 9% Total cost range for a $200 transfer across ten international corridors tested
- 35% Share of income received in stablecoins by gig and platform workers surveyed
The Bank of Italy published a mystery shopping exercise examining stablecoin efficiency for cross-border payments, executing transfers of $200 across ten international payment routes. The central bank found that total costs, including buying the tokens, moving them across blockchains, and converting them back to local currency, ranged from 0.30% to nearly 9% of the transferred amount. Blockchain settlement itself was a minor cost factor; the real friction came from on- and off-ramp services where users convert between fiat and stablecoins. For emerging-market workers already holding stablecoins or receiving wages in them, these spreads and fees can make it economically impractical to access their own earnings.
On-Ramp and Off-Ramp Costs Overwhelm Blockchain Speed Gains
The separation of cost is stark. The on-chain transfer, the actual blockchain transaction moving the stablecoin, accounted for only a marginal share of total expense. Yet the speed of money movement meant little if the conversion itself was expensive.
A BVNK survey revealed that workers most exposed to these costs are those relying on stablecoin income. Freelancers, gig workers and marketplace sellers received roughly 35% of their income via stablecoins. For someone paid in USDC but needing to pay rent in local currency, the journey from wallet to bank account involves multiple intermediaries, each extracting a fee. Exchange-rate spreads can also narrow the final payout even when a platform advertises zero transfer fees.
Consumer Experience Lags Behind Blockchain Capability
The disconnect is between what stablecoins can do technically and what users actually encounter. RedotPay, which operates physical and virtual cards at over 130 million merchants globally, identified the core friction point. “On-ramping and off-ramping is still too expensive,” RedotPay’s Head of Corporate Affairs stated, using the example of a worker withdrawing funds for a substantial purchase like a down payment, a transaction where conversion costs become prohibitively high.
KAST, a global money app powered by stablecoins, frames the problem as a user-experience layer problem. “Keep the money movement as simple as stablecoins allow while the user experience looks like Web2,” said KAST CEO Raagulan Pathy. Most consumers do not care whether their remittance moves on Ethereum, Polygon or Solana; they care that money arrives and is spendable.
Yet the current infrastructure requires recipients to navigate wallet addresses, blockchain network selection and separate gas-fee tokens before their earnings become accessible, unfamiliar friction for workers in emerging markets where stablecoin adoption is highest.
Regulation and Market Competition as Potential Cost Drivers
RedotPay’s executives argue that regulation could lower barriers for on- and off-ramp providers to negotiate better rates with banks and liquidity partners, creating competitive pressure to reduce fees.
Clearer compliance frameworks might allow more financial institutions to offer direct stablecoin conversion services, potentially undercutting the spreads currently charged by smaller exchanges and fintech operators.
However, the Bank of Italy’s findings do not yet show that outcome, regulatory clarity alone will not eliminate the cost unless it materializes in actual payout improvements for end users.
The useful comparison is not between stablecoins and expensive, slow traditional remittances. The World Bank’s Q3 2025 data showed global average remittance costs at 6.36%, while its digital-only money-transfer-operator index stood at 3.54%. On some routes, the Bank of Italy’s stablecoin costs beat both benchmarks; on others, they exceeded them.
What matters is whether a worker in Brazil, South Africa or the UAE can receive and spend their wages faster and cheaper than available alternatives, accounting for every conversion step, not whether stablecoins can theoretically move money in seconds.
The CCS read. We see three institutional implications: first, wallet and card providers must absorb off-ramp complexity to scale, shifting costs upstream to themselves; second, banks and fintechs that integrate stablecoin rails will compete on final-payout rates, not advertised transfer fees; third, emerging-market wage and remittance flows will remain price-sensitive, making fee transparency and bundled on- and off-ramp services more valuable than blockchain speed alone.
The open question is whether regulation will lower on- and off-ramp costs or simply legitimize existing providers without reducing fees. RedotPay and others argue compliance frameworks unlock better commercial terms; the Bank of Italy’s data does not yet confirm this for users. Watch for whether banks entering stablecoin payments undercut fintech spreads.
