Send the same $200: the stablecoin route costs just $2, while traditional remittance costs $12.72. That’s a $10.72 difference on a single transfer 🦖
🕐 最新解读群里更新
These are the median figures in the latest Q3 report from stablecoin payments network Borderless. Remittances through stablecoin channels cost about 1%, compared with 6.36% for traditional remittances, according to World Bank data—a difference of about 84% 📉
A regional breakdown makes the contrast even clearer. In Sub-Saharan Africa, stablecoin channels cost 2.9%, versus 8.46% traditionally. In Latin America, it’s 1.25% versus 5.64%. The gap is several-fold in every case.
The difference is even more striking for business payments. Sending $10,000 to the eurozone costs just $26 via the cheapest channel, or $52 at the median. A traditional bank wire costs $135–$150, including fees and an assumed 1% foreign exchange cost 💸
The speed is in a different league, too. The median transfer time is 2 minutes via Brazil’s PIX, 3 minutes via Mexico’s SPEI, and 2 minutes via Colombia’s PSE. Traditional SWIFT transfers generally take until the next business day, while the slowest 10% take three business days ⏱
But half the report is a reality check: completion rates vary widely across channels. Mexico’s SPEI is at 98.6%, Brazil’s PIX at 97.8%, Colombia’s PSE at just 79%, and Costa Rica’s SINPE at just 73%. That means more than one in five—and nearly three in ten—payments fail along the way.
My takeaway is that the report’s real message isn’t how much money people save. It’s that stablecoins are shifting from speculative holdings to everyday settlement. Interestingly, stablecoin market capitalization has barely grown this year, while transaction counts keep rising. Standard Chartered forecasts a $2 trillion market by 2030—two years later than in its previous forecast.
Put simply: the savings come from lower costs, and traditional cross-border remittance intermediaries are giving up their margins. What’s really holding back adoption isn’t the technology, but completion rates across different corridors and the maturity of local clearing networks. Getting one route up and running doesn’t mean they’ll all work.
The signal worth watching is whether stablecoin market cap rises along with transaction volume. If usage grows without the market expanding, that suggests stablecoins are still replacing old payment rails rather than attracting new capital.
How much were you charged in fees for your last cross-border transfer? Tell us in the comments.
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, we cover the latest in stablecoins and cross-border payments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀
🕐 最新解读群里更新
These are the median figures in the latest Q3 report from stablecoin payments network Borderless. Remittances through stablecoin channels cost about 1%, compared with 6.36% for traditional remittances, according to World Bank data—a difference of about 84% 📉
A regional breakdown makes the contrast even clearer. In Sub-Saharan Africa, stablecoin channels cost 2.9%, versus 8.46% traditionally. In Latin America, it’s 1.25% versus 5.64%. The gap is several-fold in every case.
The difference is even more striking for business payments. Sending $10,000 to the eurozone costs just $26 via the cheapest channel, or $52 at the median. A traditional bank wire costs $135–$150, including fees and an assumed 1% foreign exchange cost 💸
The speed is in a different league, too. The median transfer time is 2 minutes via Brazil’s PIX, 3 minutes via Mexico’s SPEI, and 2 minutes via Colombia’s PSE. Traditional SWIFT transfers generally take until the next business day, while the slowest 10% take three business days ⏱
But half the report is a reality check: completion rates vary widely across channels. Mexico’s SPEI is at 98.6%, Brazil’s PIX at 97.8%, Colombia’s PSE at just 79%, and Costa Rica’s SINPE at just 73%. That means more than one in five—and nearly three in ten—payments fail along the way.
My takeaway is that the report’s real message isn’t how much money people save. It’s that stablecoins are shifting from speculative holdings to everyday settlement. Interestingly, stablecoin market capitalization has barely grown this year, while transaction counts keep rising. Standard Chartered forecasts a $2 trillion market by 2030—two years later than in its previous forecast.
Put simply: the savings come from lower costs, and traditional cross-border remittance intermediaries are giving up their margins. What’s really holding back adoption isn’t the technology, but completion rates across different corridors and the maturity of local clearing networks. Getting one route up and running doesn’t mean they’ll all work.
The signal worth watching is whether stablecoin market cap rises along with transaction volume. If usage grows without the market expanding, that suggests stablecoins are still replacing old payment rails rather than attracting new capital.
How much were you charged in fees for your last cross-border transfer? Tell us in the comments.
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, we cover the latest in stablecoins and cross-border payments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀