A stablecoin transfer can reach a recipient abroad within seconds, yet turning that digital balance into usable money may take much longer and cost more than expected.
For the person sending funds, a payment confirmation can appear to complete the transaction. For the recipient, however, the practical questions may only be beginning: whether rent must be paid in local currency, how far away a cash collection point is, and whether some of the money should remain in dollars.
Stablecoins are privately issued digital tokens generally designed to follow the value of a currency, most commonly the US dollar. They can be transferred across blockchain networks and held by recipients until they choose to exchange them.
But receiving a dollar-denominated token is not the same as receiving money in a local bank account. A recipient already familiar with a crypto app may find the process convenient, while someone who simply needs cash for the week may face unfamiliar and difficult steps.
The costs beyond the blockchain
A transfer from euros in an Italian bank account to reais spent in Brazil illustrates the difference. A sender using stablecoins may fund an exchange account, buy the tokens and send them to the recipient. The recipient then sells them and withdraws the proceeds into a local account.
The blockchain records and moves the token, but it does not determine every exchange rate or govern the cost of the services used before and after the transfer. A cheap movement between digital addresses can therefore be surrounded by more expensive purchases, conversions and withdrawals.
Some charges are displayed openly, while others are reflected in the exchange rate. A service may promote a low fee but provide fewer reais for each euro. For a household, both forms of charge mean receiving less money.
Bank of Italy researchers examined $200 USDC transfers between Italy and five other countries in a paper published in July. Their Brazil figures showed that the cheaper option changed depending on the direction of the payment:
| Direction | USDC route cost | Cost on $200 | Wise quote used in the paper | Cost on $200 |
||:|:|:|:|
| Italy to Brazil | 2.70% | $5.40 | 2.20% | $4.40 |
| Brazil to Italy | 2.21% | $4.42 | 4.68%–4.89% | $9.36–$9.78 |
The USDC transactions took place in March 2026 and the Wise simulations on April 14. These were dated observations rather than current quotes or market-wide averages, with the dollar amounts calculated from the percentages in the paper.
The World Bank’s remittance-price analysis also includes exchange-rate margins when assessing transfer costs. Comparing the sender’s total payment with the amount received can reveal charges that an advertised fee does not show. Country averages offer context, but households need a quote for the specific route and payout method they intend to use.
Speed is also determined by the surrounding services. A token may arrive in a wallet within seconds, while converting it or withdrawing it through a bank can take a day. In Brazil, strong exchanges and quick domestic payment systems may make that final stage straightforward, meaning the recipient may care little about which blockchain carried the transaction if the money appears in an app they already use.
A choice over what to hold
A simple comparison of the cheapest route can overlook another attraction of digital dollars: recipients do not necessarily need to convert the entire payment immediately.
Someone receiving $200 might want the local-currency equivalent of $120 for everyday expenses and keep the remaining $80 in dollar form. Stablecoins can allow that split, where local services and rules permit it, giving the recipient control over how much to exchange and when.
Holding dollars carries risks. Someone whose expenses are in local currency remains exposed to exchange-rate movements, while dollars can also lose purchasing power. Keeping the balance as a token adds reliance on the issuer’s reserves and redemption arrangements, and stablecoin holdings generally do not have the deposit insurance available to eligible bank accounts.
Circle Mint serves institutions obtaining and redeeming USDC, while retail customers commonly use exchanges or payment providers. Circle’s EEA redemption policy offers a separate route for eligible holders under European rules. A household may therefore have redemption rights without being able to open an institutional account.
Even then, redemption does not remove the need for local conversion or access to cash, nor the need for understandable support if something goes wrong.
Familiarity matters. A recipient who knows a person behind a counter can ask for help, while relatives using the same app may be able to explain an unfamiliar process. That saves time and reduces mistakes, and prevents the sender from becoming unpaid technical support for the family.
Usability matters more than the headline fee
Small differences in the cost of monthly remittances can become significant. Cutting the total cost of a $200 monthly payment from 5% to 2% would save $6 per transfer, or $72 over 12 payments. Whether that saving comes from a stablecoin, bank or specialist payment company matters less than whether the household can actually receive the money.
The calculation also depends on the starting budget. Charging a fee on top of $200 produces a different result from deducting it from the amount being sent, so advertised transfer amounts can compare different total spending limits.
There are costs before a first transfer as well. New users may need identity checks, another funded account and knowledge of which network the recipient supports. Sending to the wrong address or an unsupported network can make recovery difficult or impossible, depending on who controls the receiving account. Experienced crypto users may manage these steps easily, but the support required by first-time users may not appear in the quoted fee.
Traditional services involve work too. Cash collection can mean travelling and waiting, while accessing an account may require documents the recipient does not have. A provider with an excellent app in the sending country may offer a poor experience at the destination.
Payment companies can absorb much of that complexity by moving stablecoins between their own accounts and paying recipients through a familiar local system. The company chooses how to settle the transaction, while the customer receives a balance they can spend.
For some recipients, retaining the token is the main benefit. Services offering both options allow households to decide how much to convert, provided the costs are clear before the payment is completed.
The most useful payment is therefore not necessarily the one confirmed fastest or advertised most cheaply. It is the one that delivers what the sender intended in a form the recipient can actually usewhether that means more local currency for the week or keeping part of the payment in dollars.
