Stablecoin Cost Savings: 41% of Businesses Report 10%+ Reduction

A June 2025 EY-Parthenon survey of 350 executives found that among organizations already using stablecoins, 41% reported cost savings of at least 10% on cross-border payments. The figure comes from a relatively small base of active corporate users, but it aligns with a broader pattern: businesses that move money internationally are finding that stablecoin payment rails compress costs that have been embedded in correspondent banking for decades.

This article breaks down where those savings come from, which industries benefit most, what the remaining barriers are, and how the data compares across independent surveys.

What the EY-Parthenon Survey Found

The survey covered 250 corporate executives and 100 financial institution decision-makers. At the time of fielding, roughly 13% of respondents were actively using stablecoins, mostly for cross-border B2B payments denominated in USD. Among those active users, 41% reported realized cost savings of 10% or more.

Other findings from the same survey paint a picture of accelerating interest. Among non-users, 54% expected to adopt stablecoins within six to 12 months. Looking further out, respondents projected that stablecoins could handle 5% to 10% of global payment value by 2030, which EY estimated at $2.1 trillion to $4.2 trillion in annual volume.

Sample size matters: The 41% figure rests on a relatively small group of active corporate users within the 350-person sample. It reflects self-reported results from early adopters, not a guarantee for every business or corridor. Treat it as directional evidence, not a universal benchmark.

Corroborating Surveys

The EY data does not stand alone. A separate Cybrid survey of 468 executives published in 2026 found that businesses using stablecoins for cross-border payments reported average savings of 35%. Companies processing more than $100 million in monthly payment volume reported savings near 47%. A Paxos survey of 400 financial leaders found that over 90% considered issuer regulation the top factor when choosing a stablecoin, suggesting that trust in the underlying asset matters as much as the cost math.

Where the Savings Come From

Cross-border payment costs are not a single line item. They accumulate across multiple layers, and stablecoins compress several of them simultaneously. Understanding the cost stack explains why the savings figures are as large as they are.

FX Conversion Costs

Foreign exchange markups are the largest hidden cost in international payments. The Financial Stability Board found that FX markups account for 60% to 97% of total cross-border costs, depending on the payment type. Many providers advertise "zero-fee" transfers while embedding the margin in the exchange rate. A Bank of Canada study found that banks charge total margins of 2% to 3.5% on outbound payments, with FX accounting for the majority.

USD-denominated stablecoins like USDC, USDT, and USDB eliminate the FX conversion step entirely when both parties transact in dollars. For corridors where the receiver needs local currency, the conversion still happens, but it occurs once at the destination rather than through a chain of intermediary banks, each taking a spread.

Intermediary Removal

A typical correspondent banking payment passes through two to five intermediary institutions. Each one deducts a fee, and the sender often cannot predict the total deduction until the payment arrives. The World Bank's Q1 2025 data puts the global average remittance cost at 6.49% of the transfer amount, with bank-channel transfers averaging 14.55%. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the most expensive receiving region at 8.78%.

Stablecoin transfers run on public blockchain infrastructure or Layer 2 networks, bypassing the correspondent chain. A 2026 report from Borderless measured the median cost of a $10,000 stablecoin cross-border transfer at approximately 27 basis points (0.27%), including provider spreads and rail fees. That compares to $150 to $450 in total costs for the same amount through a traditional wire.

Settlement Speed and Working Capital

Traditional cross-border payments take three to five business days through the SWIFT network, and transfers to emerging markets can stretch to five to 10 days. During that window, capital is in transit and unavailable: it cannot be redeployed, invested, or used to pay other obligations.

Stablecoin settlement is typically measured in minutes. For businesses running regular international payouts, the difference compounds. A company making weekly $500,000 supplier payments that settle in minutes rather than five days recovers access to roughly $2.5 million in float that would otherwise be locked in transit. This working capital benefit often exceeds the direct fee savings.

Prefunding is the hidden cost: Many businesses maintain nostro/vostro accounts funded in eight to 10 currencies to ensure same-day delivery to suppliers. Stablecoin rails that settle per-transaction can release this trapped float back to operations, reducing the cash buffer a treasury team needs to maintain.

Reconciliation and Back-Office Efficiency

Blockchain-based payments produce a deterministic, timestamped record of each transfer. Unlike SWIFT messages, which can be delayed, reordered, or truncated by intermediaries, on-chain or Layer 2 transactions create a single source of truth. Treasury teams report that this reduces manual reconciliation effort, especially for high-volume B2B payables where matching invoices to payments across currencies and time zones is a persistent operational burden.

Cost Comparison by Payment Type

The magnitude of savings depends heavily on payment type, corridor, and volume. The table below summarizes typical ranges from multiple sources. All figures are estimates and vary by provider.

The stablecoin cost range widens when on-ramp and off-ramp fees are included, since converting between fiat and stablecoins still carries a cost. For businesses that can hold and receive stablecoins natively, the savings are largest. For those that must convert at both ends, the advantage narrows but typically remains significant above $5,000 per transfer.

Which Industries See the Largest Savings

Not every business benefits equally. The savings concentrate in industries where international payments are frequent, high-volume, or directed toward corridors with expensive correspondent banking relationships.

Import/Export and Supply Chain

Manufacturers and trading companies making regular supplier payments across borders are among the earliest adopters. These businesses often maintain prefunded accounts in multiple currencies and face unpredictable deduction fees from intermediary banks. The Cybrid survey found that companies processing over $100 million monthly reported the highest savings, and supply chain finance operations are a natural fit because payment timing directly affects supplier relationships and discount terms.

Freelancer and Contractor Payments

Companies paying distributed workforces across 10 or more countries face the full weight of correspondent banking costs on every payout. Individual payments of $500 to $5,000 are hit hardest by fixed per- transaction fees. Stablecoin payroll providers report that freelancer payouts can drop from $25 to $50 in fees per payment to under $1, with settlement in minutes rather than days. The receiver also avoids the bank's inbound wire fee, which can be $15 to $25 in many emerging market corridors.

Remittances and Financial Inclusion

The World Bank's 6.49% average cost figure includes consumer remittances, where the pain is most acute for low-value transfers. Sending $200 through a bank costs an average of $29 in fees. A 2026 Borderless report found that stablecoin remittance routes delivered costs roughly 80% lower than traditional channels for comparable corridors. For high-cost corridors like Sub-Saharan Africa, the gap is even wider.

B2B Settlement and Trade Finance

Large invoice settlements between businesses (typically $50,000 to $500,000) carry lower percentage costs but higher absolute fees. Settlement delay matters more at this scale because of working capital implications. A Vantage Bank pilot targeting stablecoin-based cross-border settlement projected cutting per-transaction costs from $6.78 to $0.28, a 96% reduction. While that target has not been independently verified, it illustrates the magnitude that institutional users are modeling.

Barriers to Adoption

Despite the cost advantages, the majority of businesses have not adopted stablecoins. The EY-Parthenon survey identified three primary barriers, ranked by frequency of citation.

Regulatory Uncertainty

73% of respondents cited regulatory uncertainty as the top obstacle. The GENIUS Act in the United States has begun to address this: 81% of corporate respondents said clearer legislation would increase their willingness to adopt. The MiCA framework in Europe provides a parallel regulatory structure. But many corridors still lack clear rules on stablecoin classification, reserve requirements, and travel rule compliance.

Accounting and Tax Treatment

38% cited accounting and tax complexity. In many jurisdictions, stablecoins are classified as digital assets rather than cash equivalents, requiring mark-to-market accounting even though the value is pegged. This creates reporting overhead that partially offsets the operational savings. The accounting treatment is evolving, but treasury teams need certainty before committing to stablecoin-denominated payables and receivables.

Operational Complexity

32% cited operational complexity as a barrier. Integrating stablecoin payments into existing ERP and treasury management systems requires development work. The EY survey found that 56% of corporates would prefer stablecoin access embedded directly in their existing treasury platforms via API, and 70% said ERP integration would increase their willingness to adopt. This signals that the technology itself is not the bottleneck: the integration with existing financial workflows is.

What Would Change Non-Users' Minds

The survey data points to a clear hierarchy of adoption triggers:

• Regulatory clarity from major jurisdictions (U.S., EU, UK)
• Bank-provided stablecoin services (63% of corporates prefer their existing bank as the provider)
• Native integration with ERP and treasury platforms
• Standardized accounting treatment across jurisdictions
• Proven compliance tooling for KYC/AML and sanctions screening

The On-Ramp and Off-Ramp Question

One nuance frequently missing from cost comparisons is the on-ramp and off-ramp cost. Converting fiat to stablecoins and back adds 0.1% to 1.5% depending on provider, volume, and corridor. For businesses that receive revenue in fiat and pay suppliers in fiat, this conversion cost can erode the savings, particularly on smaller transactions.

The economics improve as more counterparties accept stablecoins natively. When a supplier accepts USDC or USDB directly, the sender avoids the off-ramp entirely. The EY survey found that only 8% of respondents currently accept payments directly in stablecoins, but this figure is expected to grow as regulatory frameworks mature and merchant adoption increases.

Stablecoins on Low-Cost Settlement Infrastructure

The cost of moving stablecoins depends partly on the underlying settlement layer. Ethereum mainnet transactions can cost several dollars in gas fees during congestion. Layer 2 networks and alternative chains offer substantially lower costs, but introduce their own tradeoffs around security, finality, and liquidity.

Spark, a Bitcoin Layer 2, takes a different approach by enabling stablecoin transfers through USDB with near-zero transaction fees and instant settlement. Because Spark uses a statechain-based architecture rather than smart contract execution, transfers do not compete for block space, keeping costs predictable regardless of network congestion. For businesses evaluating which rails to use for stablecoin payments, the settlement layer's fee structure directly affects the net savings they realize.

The Spark SDK provides developers with tools to integrate stablecoin payments into applications. For end users, General Bread offers a Spark-powered wallet that supports USDB transfers with the cost characteristics described above. These are practical entry points for businesses and individuals exploring whether stablecoin rails fit their payment needs.

What to Expect Next

The convergence of regulatory clarity, falling infrastructure costs, and growing stablecoin acceptance is likely to accelerate adoption. The EY survey projects stablecoin payment volume reaching $2.1 trillion to $4.2 trillion by 2030. If the cost savings reported by early adopters hold as the user base expands, the impact on global payment rails will be substantial.

For businesses considering adoption, the data suggests starting with corridors where correspondent banking costs are highest: Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. B2B payments above $5,000 offer the clearest ROI because fixed on-ramp costs become negligible relative to the savings on FX spreads and intermediary fees.

The 41% figure from the EY survey is a snapshot of early results from a small but growing user base. As more businesses move from pilot to production, the quality and breadth of cost data will improve. What the current evidence shows is that the savings are real, concentrated in specific cost categories, and large enough to justify the integration effort for businesses with meaningful cross-border payment volumes.

This article is for educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial or investment advice. Bitcoin and Layer 2 protocols involve technical and financial risk. Always do your own research and understand the tradeoffs before using any protocol.