Transferring $200 with stablecoins could cost around 60 cents, or it could cost close to $18. This is the gap found by the Bank of Italy in ten international payment route experiments. Buying stablecoins and converting back to cash account for most of the cost; transferring tokens on the blockchain accounts for only a small portion.
This is no small amount. For people who receive their salaries in stablecoins, the cost can be quite significant. The money may arrive in a crypto wallet first, while rent still needs to be paid from a bank account.
Another survey by stablecoin infrastructure provider BVNK, which was acquired by Mastercard, found that about 35% of the income of freelancers, gig workers, and marketplace sellers is received through stablecoins.
Today, the utility of stablecoins has been fully demonstrated across multiple industries. But the harder question is: when the money reaches where it is truly useful, how much is left.
Where stablecoin fees add up
A payment may involve buying stablecoins, transferring stablecoins, and then selling them for local currency. Each step may incur fees. Even if the advertised transfer fee is zero, exchange rate spreads can still shrink the final amount received.
The range of 0.30% to nearly 9% in the Italian study covers the entire process above across the sample routes. This is not a global average off-ramp fee.
Research published by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) likewise examined how exchange and withdrawal costs affect the competitiveness of stablecoins relative to banks and fintech services.
At TOKEN2049, Taylor Bossung of RedotPay pointed out the friction that still exists. RedotPay provides users with physical and virtual cards, enabling them to spend stablecoins at more than 130 million merchants, so it has deep insight into the pain points.
"On-ramping and off-ramping are still too expensive."
He gave the example of someone withdrawing funds for a large expense—such as a down payment. Being able to top up a card with stablecoins to buy groceries does not necessarily mean that larger withdrawals are affordable.
Making stablecoin payments simpler
Before recipients compare costs, they may first have to deal with wallet addresses, blockchain networks, and a separate token used to pay network fees. These unfamiliar choices stand between people and their income.
Raagulan Pathy, CEO of the stablecoin-powered global payment app KAST, described the goal:
"While the user experience looks like Web2, make money movement as simple as stablecoins allow."
This means familiar actions, such as sending money to a phone number. His explanation is based on a simpler observation:
"People care about the money, not the underlying tool."
A simpler interface reduces the operational burden on customers. But behind the scenes, someone still needs to arrange the exchange and delivery.
For businesses adopting stablecoin payments, this distinction matters if they want to scale and truly solve the problems faced by a growing consumer base. A convenient payroll process may leave the work of "making wages spendable" to employees.
When stablecoins are more valuable
Some recipients want to keep digital dollars, while others need to convert to local currency immediately. These choices change the calculation.
People who already hold stablecoins need to compare spending and withdrawal costs. Those starting from ordinary currency must also calculate the cost of buying stablecoins.
Alternatives also matter. The World Bank's global average remittance cost in the third quarter of 2025 was 6.36%, while its index for digital remittance operators only was 3.54%.
These historical benchmarks show why comparing stablecoins only with expensive transfers can be misleading.
A useful comparison should be for the same amount, the same destination, the same currency, and the same payout method.
What can make off-ramping cheaper?
Bossung believes regulation is part of the answer:
"It enables on-ramp and off-ramp providers to negotiate better terms, and a competitive market then drives down the price of core functions," said the head of corporate affairs at RedotPay.
This is a proposition that needs to be tested against what customers actually receive. Better commercial terms only matter if they translate into better exchange rates, lower withdrawal fees, or a larger final amount received.
For workers paying rent or businesses paying suppliers, the real test is how much arrives, how quickly it arrives, and whether the recipient can use it. The promise of faster money is meaningful when the savings run through the entire process.
