ReadingResearchRadarInvestment framework
Sign in / Sign up
← Back to reading
NewsTopic · BIS稳定币跨境支付研究3 min read·2026-10-19

BIS Working Paper: Stablecoin Cross-Border Payment Costs Still Constrained by Intermediary Fees and Liquidity

A Bank for International Settlements working paper compares all-in costs across three cross-border payment channels—traditional bank wires, fintech money transfer operators, and stablecoin-based transfers. The study finds that fintech MTOs have substantially compressed costs, while stablecoins have not eliminated cross-border payment frictions as market narratives suggested, due to fiat conversion intermediary fees and thin liquidity.

ImportanceMaterialEvidenceE3 inspectableWrite-upStandard

2026-10-19 20:00 GMT+8

The Bank for International Settlements published Working Paper 1385 in October 2026, authored by Wenxin Du, Catherine Huang and David Scharfstein. The paper compares all-in costs across three cross-border payment channels: traditional bank wires, fintech money transfer operators (MTOs), and stablecoin-based transfers. Its central finding is that fintech MTOs have already substantially compressed cross-border payment costs, while stablecoins have not become the panacea for payment frictions that market narratives implied.

The paper constructs a comparable cost measurement methodology that separates foreign exchange markups from explicit fees. For bank wires, the authors find that even on highly liquid currency pairs, FX markups range from approximately 2% to 4.7%, before accounting for explicit wire fees. By contrast, fintech transfer costs are considerably lower and decline substantially as a share of the amount sent as transfer size increases. For $10,000 transfers from the United States, median costs across developed market currency groups are around $40–$60.

The problem with stablecoins is that cross-border transfers still require bidirectional conversions between fiat currencies and stablecoins. These conversions rely on crypto exchanges and other intermediaries, whose trading, conversion and withdrawal fees can substantially increase the total cost. Recipients may also have to wait for stablecoin conversion and bank processing before they can actually access funds in their bank accounts. More critically, liquidity between US dollar stablecoins and non-US currencies is generally very thin, which limits the feasibility of large transfers.

Sign in / Sign up
ReadingResearchRadarInvestment framework

The paper also notes that stablecoins can offer favourable FX pricing for transfers from developed markets to some emerging market economies, but this advantage reflects distortions associated with capital controls rather than the underlying technology. Limited market depth and volatile pricing also constrain the scale of such transfers. The authors conclude that the competitiveness of stablecoins as cross-border payment rails depends not only on blockchain technology but also on market liquidity, reliable access to fiat currencies, regulatory compliance and trust in intermediaries.

For investors, this paper provides a quantitative benchmark for evaluating the cost narratives of stablecoin payment companies. If a company's valuation is built on the assumption that stablecoins will eliminate cross-border payment frictions, then fiat conversion intermediary fees and liquidity constraints are two factors that need to be incorporated into cost models. At the same time, the paper confirms the actual cost-compression achievements of fintech MTOs, providing data support for assessing the competitive positions of companies like Wise and Remitly.

It is worth noting that the bank wire cost estimates in the paper are based on a relatively small sample, whose representativeness awaits further data validation. Stablecoin infrastructure is also evolving rapidly, and current liquidity constraints may not be a long-term state. The paper itself is a research working paper; its conclusions do not represent the policy stance of the Bank for International Settlements.

Sources

  • 原始出处bis.org↗
Topic

BIS稳定币跨境支付研究

国际清算银行(BIS)最新系列研究指出,稳定币在跨境支付中并未如预期般消除摩擦,反而因法币兑换中介费用和流动性约束推高了全口径成本。【背景】全球跨境汇款平均成本仍远高于G20设定的3%目标。BIS工作论文对比了传统银行电汇、金融科技汇款公司…

5 steps0 piecesUpdated 2026-10-20 09:49

How it got here

  1. 2023-10-31支付与市场基础设施委员会(CPMI)发布报告,指出尚无完全合规的稳定币安排,且其跨境使用可能损害货币主权和金融稳定。
  2. 2025-07-11BIS Bulletin 108强调稳定币与传统金融系统联系日益紧密,外币计价稳定币的广泛使用引发对货币主权的担忧。
  3. 2026-03-27BIS工作论文1340证实,美元稳定币需求的外生冲击会导致当地货币贬值并扩大美元融资溢价,尤其影响新兴市场。

What is still unsettled

  • 随着美国《Genius Act》等法规落地,合规稳定币发行商能否通过优化法币进出通道来实质性降低中介费用?
  • 监管机构如何平衡稳定币带来的支付效率提升与其对新兴市场汇率稳定造成的溢出风险?
  • 在缺乏深度流动性的情况下,非美元计价的稳定币是否能在特定走廊(Corridor)找到可行的商业模型?
Read the full topic →
Continue researching →