CZ’s stablecoin pitch hits a real problem: remittances are still too expensive
Changpeng Zhao’s claim that stablecoins could cut cross-border remittance fees to “near zero” lands because the current system is still bloated, slow, and packed with middlemen taking a cut.
- Stablecoins can cut transfer friction, but they do not erase every cost.
- “Near zero” is only true for the blockchain leg, not the full remittance journey.
- Real-world use is growing, especially in cross-border payment corridors.
- Regulators are watching closely, because cheap money movement also helps bad actors.
That is the basic appeal of stablecoins: move digital dollars across borders in minutes, often for a tiny network fee, instead of sending money through a maze of correspondent banks, payment processors, and local intermediaries.
But the headline-friendly version of that idea leaves out a few inconvenient truths.
The blockchain fee is usually the cheap part. The full remittance cost often includes currency conversion, on-ramp and off-ramp charges, liquidity spreads, and compliance overhead. In plain English: converting cash into a stablecoin, moving it, and then turning it back into spendable local money can still cost real money. The rail may be cheap. The plumbing around it is not.
That is why “near zero” should be treated as shorthand, not gospel. It may describe the transfer leg itself, but it does not describe the whole journey from sender to recipient. Crypto loves to brag about settlement costs. Families sending money home care about the total bill.
Stablecoins are still a serious fit for remittances, though. They are designed to track a stable value, usually the U.S. dollar, which makes them useful for people who want something that behaves more like money and less like a roller coaster. For users dealing with slow banks, weak local currencies, or expensive transfer corridors, that matters a lot.
The Inter-American Development Bank has been tracking this shift. In its work on stablecoins and remittances, the IDB has highlighted the U.S.-Mexico corridor as a meaningful example of crypto being used for actual household money movement, not just speculative trading.
According to IDB-cited data, Bitso reportedly processed more than $6.5 billion in remittances in 2024 in that corridor, which represented more than 10% of total corridor volume. Mexico’s remittances were reported at about $61.8 billion in 2025. In a market that large, even a small reduction in fees can mean a meaningful amount of cash staying in people’s hands instead of disappearing into middlemen.
Still, this is where the hype needs a reality check. Stablecoins do not magically abolish the costs of getting money in and out of the system. If a sender pays an exchange spread on the way in, the recipient pays an off-ramp fee on the way out, and both ends have to deal with liquidity or banking friction, the “near zero” dream gets a lot less neat.
That is the central distinction people keep glossing over: on-chain settlement versus all-in remittance cost. The first can be tiny. The second usually is not.
The upside is still real. Stablecoins can reduce the number of intermediaries, speed up settlement, and make cross-border transfers more direct. That is especially useful in places where legacy rails are slow, expensive, or unreliable. If you are sending money to family in another country, shaving costs and waiting time is not a gimmick. It is the point.
The downside is real too. The IDB flags run risk, meaning the possibility that confidence in a stablecoin issuer breaks down and holders rush to redeem at once. It also points to cross-border dollarization and capital-flow volatility, especially in weaker economies where people may pile into dollar-linked assets when local conditions get ugly. And then there is the obvious issue: fast, borderless transfers are useful for honest users and criminals alike.
That is why regulators are tightening the screws. The IDB points to the U.S. GENIUS Act as a federal framework for payment stablecoins, while the European Union’s MiCA regime already provides rules for asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens. The FATF Travel Rule, also known as Recommendation 16, adds another layer by pushing for information to travel with cross-border transfers. In other words: the industry gets speed, but it does not get a blank check.
So yes, CZ’s core point has merit. Stablecoins can make remittances cheaper and faster, and in some corridors they already are. But the “near zero” framing is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It works as a punchy soundbite. It does not survive much contact with the real world, where conversion costs, compliance, and local cash-out frictions still take their bite.
The honest take is simple: stablecoins are becoming a real payments rail, not just a trading toy. That is good for adoption, good for users, and good for people who are tired of legacy payment systems acting like it is still 1998. But cheap blockchain settlement is not the same thing as free remittances. Anyone pretending otherwise is selling a fairy tale with a whitepaper attached.
Key takeaways
- Can stablecoins cut remittance costs?
Yes, often meaningfully. They can reduce intermediaries and speed up settlement, which lowers friction in many corridors. - Are remittance fees really near zero?
Usually not. On-chain fees can be tiny, but FX spreads, off-ramp charges, liquidity, and compliance still add up. - Why are stablecoins attractive for remittances?
They move dollar-linked value quickly across borders and can work better than slow, expensive legacy rails. - What is the biggest catch?
The full cost of getting money in and out of the system is often much higher than the blockchain transfer itself. - Why do regulators care?
Because stablecoins can improve payments while also creating risks around redemptions, capital flows, consumer protection, and illicit transfers.
Key questions and answers
-
What does “near zero” actually refer to?
It usually refers to the blockchain transfer fee, not the full remittance cost. The cheap part is the chain; the expensive part is often everything around it. -
What makes stablecoins useful for sending money across borders?
They combine dollar-like stability with fast settlement. That makes them more practical than volatile crypto assets for payments and remittances. -
Why are corridor examples like U.S.-Mexico important?
Because large remittance corridors show whether stablecoins are actually being used at scale, not just talked about in theory. -
What is run risk?
It is the risk that users suddenly lose confidence in a stablecoin issuer and rush to redeem, which can strain reserves and threaten the peg. -
Are stablecoins just for traders?
No. They are increasingly being used as a payment tool, especially for cross-border transfers and household remittances. -
What is the biggest practical barrier to “cheap” stablecoin remittances?
Converting between local money and stablecoins. On-ramps and off-ramps, plus FX spreads and compliance, often decide the real cost.
Related reading
A few background pieces on the policy and payments side of stablecoins:
- IDB and Citi Innovation Labs achieve cross-border payments over blockchain
- Crypto rule comparison: the US GENIUS Act versus the EU’s MiCA framework
- Trump Signs GENIUS Act: Stablecoins Legalized, But at What Cost
- U.S. Senate Rejects GENIUS Act: Crypto Regulation Stalls
- Senate Advances GENIUS Act to Regulate Stablecoins Amid Warren’s Opposition
- Additional background resource on stablecoin policy and payments
- Supplementary resource on stablecoin remittances and regulatory risks
