Moving $200 through stablecoins can cost as little as 60 cents or as much as nearly $18, according to a Bank of Italy experiment across ten international payment routes. The wide range shows that buying and cashing out the tokens account for most of the expense, while moving them on the blockchain represents only a small share.
The cost can be significant for someone who receives wages in stablecoins: the payment may arrive in a crypto wallet while rent still needs to leave a bank account. A survey by BVNK, a stablecoin infrastructure provider acquired by Mastercard, found that freelancers, gig workers and marketplace sellers received roughly 35% of their income via stablecoins.
Where Stablecoin Fees Add Up
A payment can involve buying stablecoins, transferring them, and selling them for local currency. Each stage can carry charges, and an exchange-rate spread can shrink the payout even when the advertised transfer fee is zero.
The Italian study’s 0.30% to nearly 9% range covers that entire journey across its sampled routes. It is not a global average cash-out fee. Research published by the BIS similarly examines how conversion and withdrawal costs affect stablecoins’ competitiveness against banks and fintech services.
Speaking at TOKEN2049, Taylor Bossung, Head of Corporate Affairs at RedotPay, identified the remaining friction. RedotPay provides physical and virtual cards for users to spend stablecoins at over 130 million merchants.
“On-ramping and off-ramping is still too expensive,” Bossung said. His example was someone withdrawing capital for a substantial purchase, such as a down payment. Being able to buy groceries with a stablecoin-funded card does not necessarily make a larger withdrawal affordable.
Making Stablecoin Payments Easier
Before recipients can compare costs, they may have to navigate wallet addresses, blockchain networks, and separate tokens used to pay network fees. These are unfamiliar decisions to put between someone and their earnings.
Raagulan Pathy, CEO of the global money app KAST, described the goal: “Keep the money movement as simple as stablecoins allow while the user experience looks like Web2.” That means familiar actions, such as sending money to a phone number. “What people care about is money, not the instrument underneath,” Pathy said.
A simpler interface removes work from the customer, but behind it someone still has to arrange conversion and delivery. For businesses adopting stablecoin payments, this distinction is important if they want to scale and address the problem faced by a growing consumer base. A convenient payroll process can leave employees with the job of making their wages spendable.
When Stablecoins Can Offer Better Value
Some recipients want to keep digital dollars, while others need local currency immediately. Those choices change the calculation. Someone already holding stablecoins needs to compare spending and withdrawal costs; someone starting with ordinary money must also count the cost of buying them.
The alternative matters, too. The World Bank’s Q3 2025 global average remittance cost was 6.36%, while its digital-only money-transfer-operator index was 3.54%. Those historical benchmarks show why comparing stablecoins only with expensive transfers can mislead. The useful comparison follows the same amount to the same destination, currency and payout method.
What Could Make Cashing Out Cheaper?
Bossung sees regulation as part of the answer. “It lets on- and off-ramp providers negotiate better deals, and a competitive market then drives down the price of core functions,” he said.
That is a proposition to test against what customers actually receive. Better commercial terms matter when they become a better exchange rate, a smaller withdrawal charge or a larger final payout.
For a worker paying rent or a business paying suppliers, the test is how much arrives, how soon, and whether the recipient can use it. The promise of faster money becomes meaningful when the savings survive the whole journey.
