The bank of italy published a mystery shopping study of stablecoin remittances in july and the blockchain turned out to be the cheapesr. They sent 200 USDC at a time across ten corridors between italy and brazil, argentina, japan, UAE and South africa. Total cost ran from 0.3% to almost 9%. Most of it sat in the on and off ramps, where dollars become tokens and tokens become local currency. Against world bank averages, stablecoins were cheaper in most corridors. Against wise it was mixed as USDC won in three corridors and lost in four speed depended on whether the countries at each end had instant payments. I believe this matters more to investors than to anyone sending money as its known that stablecoins make the pipe nearly free, so incumbents are finished and the study says the pipe was never the expensive part,the expensive part is licenses, bank relationships and a way to pay out cash or hit a local instant rail on the other end. Western Union has those,it launched stablecard in 37 markets in aug with a target of 60+ by year end and moneygram launched its own stablecoin, MGUSD in june and neither needs to win on technology. They need the token to be cheap and their payout network to be hard to copy. Aspora which uses stablecoin rails and I have never once seen a token,what I see is a rate and a payout. The product is the ramp, which is exactly where the study says the cost lives and it’s why i am skeptical of anyone valuing a remittance company on its tech. WU’s core business has been shrinking, Q2 revenue fell 1% to about $1 billion, money transfer revenue fell 2% and US retail is the weak spot. Owning the ramps only pays if volume holds and a handful of test transfers on ten corridors is a study. Where do you think the margin ends up, with the endpoints or the pipe?
CryptoAlerta — análise de criptomoedas e mercado em tempo real