A study released by payments provider Orbital on 27 October challenges the claim that stablecoin settlement is automatically the lowest-cost way to move money across borders. The company gathered 27,057 price quotes from 20 stablecoin liquidity providers across 52 currencies. For its comparisons, each quote was assessed at a $100,000 transaction amount, with routes compared against two fintech providers and an institutional foreign-exchange desk.[1]
The most useful finding concerns the direction of a payment. Among 17 payout currencies analysed for businesses already holding USDT, Orbital reports that converting and sending to local currency cost more than collecting in 15 currencies. The difference was 10–21 basis points. At $100,000, 10 basis points is $100 and 21 basis points is $210, consistent with the release's stated $100–$210 range. Brazil and Argentina were exceptions to that directional pattern.[1]
These figures do not mean every company would pay $210 extra for a stablecoin transfer. They describe particular sampled currencies, liquidity-provider quotes and assumptions about starting with USDT. A business starting with bank deposits may incur additional costs to acquire the token. Conversely, a business that already receives stablecoin revenues has a different conversion starting point. The applicable FX spread, token discount and settlement fees can all change the result.[1]
Direction, comparator and notional all change the cost result
Orbital says stablecoin routes beat two fintech comparators in 30 of 32 payment routes, while broadly matching the studied institutional FX desk. That combination is more informative than simply saying stablecoins were either cheapest or expensive. The baseline matters: retail-style or fintech consumer pricing is not the same competitive benchmark as an institutional desk negotiating volume-dependent spreads. The company has a commercial interest in payments orchestration, and this is its own research rather than an independent market-wide audit.[1]
Timing adds another constraint. Weekends can alter the availability and prices of banking liquidity, and a stablecoin trading below its reference dollar value can affect the real cost of entering or leaving the payment route. A digital transfer running continuously does not guarantee continuous, frictionless conversion to every destination currency. Execution time, fee inclusion and funds availability should be measured separately from the displayed quote.[1]
Orbital study: comparison inputs and findings
| Reported measure | Value | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Sample size | 27,057 quotes | Orbital research, not whole market |
| Stablecoin liquidity providers | 20 | Sampled sources |
| FX quote size | $100,000 | Not evidence of same spread at all notionals |
| Payout more expensive than collection | 15 of 17 currencies | Businesses already holding USDT |
| Directional cost gap | 10–21 basis points | $100–$210 at the studied amount |
For broker treasuries and cross-border payment processors, the report suggests quoting both collection and payout legs rather than adopting one house assumption about stablecoin savings. A defensible implementation would monitor cost by currency, notional, liquidity provider, direction and trading day, including fallback rails. The study provides evidence about the sampled cases; it cannot establish a permanent best route for all institutions or all future market conditions.[1]
Sources & further reading
- The honest price of stablecoin FX research announcement Orbital · 27 Oct 2026 · Accessed 31 Oct 2026