Set the comparison endpoints correctly first
Does the client need "stablecoins received in a wallet" or "usable local currency received in the supplier's bank account"? The former can end once the on-chain transfer is complete, while the latter still has to go through selling the coins and the bank or local payment network. Comparing the on-chain stablecoin transfer time with the full settlement time of a traditional bank involves inconsistent starting and ending points, and it is easy to reach misleading promotional conclusions.
Research by the Bank for International Settlements on stablecoin cross-border payments notes that on-ramp and off-ramp arrangements are an important part of the overall process. A 2026 small-value remittance field test by the Bank of Italy likewise found that costs and speeds vary widely, mainly due to on-ramp and off-ramp arrangements and local payment infrastructure. That study covered specific corridors and transaction sizes and cannot be directly extrapolated to quotes for large corporate settlements.
A single payment should be broken down into at least four categories of cost
The first category is explicit fees, including transfer, network and local payout fees; the second is implicit spreads, including fiat currency exchange, coin sales and foreign exchange conversion; the third is the cost of tied-up funds, including pre-funding, margin deposits and weekend reserves; and the fourth is operational risk cost, including reconciliation, manual review, refunds, failed retries and handling of asset anomalies. Not every item will actually arise, but each should be confirmed during assessment rather than assumed to be zero-cost.
The same route may also be cost-effective only during certain periods
Assume that both the payer and the payee of Enterprise A are willing to hold the same stablecoin, while Enterprise B must have its overseas employees receive funds in local bank accounts. A may save one coin sale and one payout, while B still depends on local bank business hours and processing arrangements. Even if the on-chain transfer fees are the same for both, the final cost and available time cannot be regarded as the same. This example illustrates structural differences; it is not a promise that stablecoins will necessarily save money.
For high-frequency corporate payments, attention should also be paid to whether a single failed transaction drags down an entire batch of settlements, and how much funds the channel requires to be pre-deposited. Average speed may look good, but if funds cannot be paid out when funds are tight, the product promise may still not be fulfilled.
Use small-scale compliance testing to build your own basis for quotes
It is advisable to select specific corridors in which operations have been approved, record the full-process settlement time and net amount received on weekdays, weekends and at different amounts, and compare them with banks or other payment solutions on the same basis. Externally, present "on-chain confirmation," "conversion completed" and "available in bank" separately, and explain exceptional circumstances. Before stable data is available, it is not appropriate to promise global instant arrival, a fixed savings percentage or the complete absence of intermediary costs.
Recommended actions
- Fix the payment starting point, the receiving endpoint and the actual delivery currency before comparing prices.
- Record the fees at each stage, the executed exchange rate, the net amount received, and the occupation of funds.
- Test normal transactions and failure and refund scenarios separately, and retain authentic timestamps.
- Use the measured corridor and applicable conditions to qualify external claims regarding timing and cost savings.
Information note: This article provides general information and does not replace legal advice based on specific facts.
References
- Considerations for the use of stablecoin arrangements in cross-border payments — Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), Bank for International Settlements
- Are Stablecoins Efficient for Remittances? Evidence from a Mystery Shopping Exercise — Bank of Italy
