Sending money across borders is broken. Consider a $1,000 remittance from the US to India: it costs between $30 and $75, takes one to three business days, and includes hidden fees buried in unfavorable exchange rates. A $500 transfer from India to the US faces similar costs and delays. Meanwhile, stablecoins, cryptocurrencies pegged to fiat currencies like the US dollar, can move the same amount in minutes for pennies, regardless of distance.
Yet despite these advantages, stablecoins remain a niche solution. The question isn't whether the technology works, but why it hasn't reached the masses, and what crypto companies must do to change that.
The advantages are undeniable. Traditional wire transfers rely on correspondent banking networks, where money hops between multiple banks, each adding processing time. A transfer from New York to Mumbai might pass through three or four intermediary banks, each requiring settlement and compliance checks. Even "instant" services like Remitly Express can take hours during peak times. Stablecoins operate on blockchain networks, primarily Ethereum, Polygon, or Solana, where transactions settle in minutes. USDC on Polygon can settle in under two minutes for less than a penny in fees. This isn't theoretical. It's how millions of DeFi users move value daily, and it works the same whether you're sending money to Mumbai or Manhattan.
The cost savings are even more compelling. Traditional remittance services charge multiple fees that add up quickly. Sending $1,000 from the US to India through Remitly costs between $5.99 and $33.99, including transfer fees of $0.99 to $3.99 and exchange rate markups of 0.5% to 3% hidden in the rate. Western Union charges $2.99 to $6.99 in transfer fees plus up to 7% in exchange rate markup for USD to INR conversions, meaning a $1,000 transfer can cost $72.99 to $76.99, with $70 of that buried in the exchange rate. Traditional bank wires charge $25 to $50 in transfer fees plus currency conversion spreads of 2% to 5%, totaling $45 to $100.
Stablecoins, by contrast, cost $0.10 to $5 in network fees depending on the blockchain, with zero exchange rate markup thanks to their 1:1 peg with the US dollar. For a $1,000 transfer, stablecoins save $5 to $75 compared to Remitly, $68 to $77 compared to Western Union, and $40 to $100 compared to bank wires. The savings compound dramatically for larger transfers. A $10,000 transfer costs the same $0.10 to $5 in network fees, while traditional services charge hundreds of dollars. This fee structure is revolutionary for migrant workers sending remittances home, especially for the $100-plus billion annual remittance flow from the US to India.
The numbers tell a clear story. Sending $500 to India through Remitly Express costs $5.99 to $10.99, while Western Union charges $20 to $43. Bank wires cost $35 to $60. Stablecoins cost $0.10 to $2. For a $1,000 transfer, Remitly Express costs $10.99 to $30.99, Western Union costs $42.99 to $76.99, and bank wires cost $45 to $100. Stablecoins cost $0.10 to $5. The pattern holds for larger amounts. Sending $5,000 through Remitly costs $25 to $100, Western Union costs $155 to $310, and bank wires cost $125 to $250. Stablecoins still cost $0.10 to $5. The larger the transfer, the more you save with stablecoins, because fees are fixed rather than percentage-based. Exchange rate markups, often hidden, represent the largest cost component for traditional services.
Accessibility is another advantage. Traditional banking requires bank accounts in both countries, compliance with banking hours, geographic proximity to bank branches, and credit checks with minimum balances. Stablecoins require a smartphone with internet and a crypto wallet, which is free to create. That's it. This accessibility is transformative for the 1.7 billion unbanked adults globally, many of whom have smartphones but no bank accounts.
Transparency matters too. Blockchain transactions are publicly verifiable. You can see exactly when your transfer was initiated, confirmed, and received. No mystery fees, no "processing delays" without explanation. The recipient can verify receipt independently.
So why aren't stablecoins mainstream? The biggest barrier isn't technical—it's legal. Most countries haven't clearly defined how stablecoins fit into existing financial regulations. In the US, companies facilitating stablecoin transfers may need money transmitter licenses in all 50 states, costing millions in compliance. Regulators want the same anti-money-laundering checks for crypto as traditional finance, but crypto's pseudonymous nature complicates this. Tax treatment remains unclear. Is receiving USDC taxable? What about converting to local currency? Circle, the USDC issuer, spent years obtaining money transmitter licenses state-by-state. Smaller companies can't afford this.
The lack of on-ramps and off-ramps creates another barrier. You can't pay rent or buy groceries with USDC directly. Users need to convert fiat to stablecoin, transfer the stablecoin, then convert stablecoin back to fiat. Each conversion point is a friction point. In many countries, crypto exchanges are banned or heavily restricted, banks refuse to work with crypto companies, and local payment processors won't touch crypto. India has imposed a 30% tax on crypto gains and a 1% TDS on all crypto transactions, making it expensive to convert stablecoins to rupees. While not banned, these taxes create significant friction for remittance recipients who need to convert USDC to INR.
Technical complexity also prevents adoption. For crypto natives, using MetaMask or a hardware wallet is second nature. For everyone else, it's intimidating. Managing private keys, understanding gas fees, avoiding scams and phishing, dealing with wallet addresses that lack human-readable names—the learning curve prevents mass adoption. Most people want to send money, not become blockchain experts.
Trust remains a challenge. After FTX, Terra/Luna, and countless DeFi hacks, trust in crypto is low. People worry whether the stablecoin will maintain its peg (Terra's UST collapsed in 2022), whether the company behind it is legitimate, and whether regulators will shut it down. Even "safe" stablecoins like USDC and USDT face skepticism. USDT's reserves were questioned for years before Tether published audits.
Liquidity and volatility risks add another layer of concern. While stablecoins aim to maintain a 1:1 peg with fiat, they can deviate. USDC briefly depegged to $0.88 during the 2023 banking crisis. USDT has traded as low as $0.95 during market stress. For someone sending $500 to pay medical bills, even a 2% deviation is unacceptable.
How can crypto companies enable mass adoption? The answer requires a fundamental shift in approach. Don't ask for forgiveness—ask for permission. Companies like Circle and Coinbase invested heavily in compliance early, obtaining money transmitter licenses proactively, implementing robust KYC/AML systems, partnering with regulated banks for fiat on/off-ramps, and working with regulators to shape policy. Ripple's approach with XRP focused on regulatory clarity before pushing adoption. While controversial, it demonstrates the importance of compliance-first thinking. Crypto companies should hire compliance officers from traditional finance, build relationships with regulators in key markets, create transparent reserve attestations like Circle's monthly USDC reports, and design products that fit existing regulatory frameworks.
Users shouldn't need to know they're using blockchain. Build interfaces that feel like Venmo or PayPal. Use phone numbers or emails instead of wallet addresses. Handle gas fees automatically, or pay them yourself. Provide transaction status updates like "Transferring..." to "Completed." Hide blockchain jargon entirely. Strike, a Bitcoin Lightning wallet, lets users send Bitcoin via phone numbers. The recipient doesn't need to know what Bitcoin is—they just receive money. Technical implementation should include custodial wallets where the company holds keys for non-technical users, Layer-2 solutions like Polygon and Arbitrum for lower fees, account abstraction (ERC-4337) for gasless transactions, and social recovery for lost keys.
The biggest friction is converting between crypto and fiat. For on-ramps, partner with payment processors like Stripe and Plaid for instant bank transfers, support credit and debit cards with higher fees but better UX, enable cash deposits at convenience stores like Bitrefill, and integrate with mobile money services like M-Pesa and Paytm. For off-ramps, offer direct bank deposits like Coinbase's "Cash Out" feature, provide prepaid debit cards loaded with stablecoins, form partnerships with local payment networks, and enable ATM withdrawals like Coinbase's card. MoonPay and Ramp enable fiat-to-crypto conversions directly in apps, abstracting away the exchange step.
Trust is earned, not assumed. For reserve transparency, publish monthly attestations from top accounting firms, show exactly what backs the stablecoin (cash, treasuries, and so on), provide real-time reserve dashboards, and undergo regular audits. For operational transparency, maintain clear fee structures with no hidden costs, conduct public security audits, run bug bounty programs, and ensure transparent governance if decentralized. Circle publishes monthly attestations showing USDC is 100% backed by cash and short-dated US Treasuries. This transparency helped USDC become the second-largest stablecoin.
Don't try to be everything to everyone. Pick a use case and dominate it. For remittances, target specific corridors like US to India, India to US, or UAE to Philippines. Partner with local payment networks like UPI in India, offer cash pickup locations, provide customer support in local languages, and integrate with India's IMPS/NEFT systems for seamless off-ramps. For cross-border business payments, B2B transfers are less regulated than remittances. Integrate with accounting software like QuickBooks and Xero, provide invoicing tools, and offer multi-currency wallets. For gig economy payments, integrate with platforms like Upwork and Fiverr, enable instant payouts, and support multiple currencies. Stellar focuses on remittances and has partnerships with MoneyGram and various mobile money providers in Africa. For the US-India corridor specifically, companies like Ripple have explored partnerships with Indian banks, though regulatory clarity remains a challenge.
Don't force users to understand blockchain. Start with custodial wallets where users don't manage keys, introduce self-custody as an advanced feature, and provide educational content but make it optional. Incentivize early adopters with fee waivers for first transfers, referral bonuses, and loyalty programs. Build support infrastructure with 24/7 customer support, multi-language support, and clear documentation and tutorials.
Don't rebuild everything. Integrate with what exists. Partner with Visa and Mastercard for card issuance. Work with banks for fiat accounts like Coinbase's banking partnerships. Integrate with M-Pesa, Paytm, and similar services in emerging markets. Enable transfers via WhatsApp and Telegram, similar to Telegram's TON integration. USDC is integrated into Visa's network, allowing direct card payments with stablecoins.
Stablecoins have the potential to revolutionize international money transfer, but mass adoption requires regulatory clarity from governments, better infrastructure for on/off-ramps, simplified UX that hides blockchain complexity, trust built through transparency and compliance, and focus on specific use cases rather than trying to be everything. Crypto companies that invest in compliance, user experience, and infrastructure will win. Those that prioritize technology over regulation and UX will remain niche.
The technology is ready. The infrastructure is improving. The regulatory landscape is clarifying. The question isn't whether stablecoins will become mainstream for international transfers. It's which companies will make it happen. Stablecoins offer 10 to 100 times the cost savings and near-instant settlement compared to traditional remittances. Sending $1,000 to India costs $0.10 to $5 with stablecoins versus $30 to $75-plus with traditional services. Exchange rate markups are the hidden killer. Western Union charges up to 7% markup on USD to INR conversions, while stablecoins maintain a 1:1 peg. Regulatory uncertainty and lack of on/off-ramps are the biggest barriers to adoption, especially in countries like India with high crypto taxes. Crypto companies must prioritize compliance, UX, and infrastructure to enable mass adoption. Focus on specific use cases like remittances and B2B payments rather than trying to replace all money transfers. The technology works—now it needs better packaging for non-technical users.
The future of international money transfer is blockchain-based. The companies that make it accessible to everyone will win.