On September 8th, Solana Foundation released a report on stablecoin remittances, outlining four pathways for traditional remittance institutions and fintech companies to enter this market, and detailing corridors for remittances from the United States to Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, the Philippines, and India. The report provides the following industry context: Globally, workers send approximately $905 billion back to their home countries each year, with an average fee of 6.49% for sending $200. Traditional processes often take three to five working days and rely on a large number of pre-financed accounts to ensure that funds are received. These figures highlight the costs of the old system. However, since the report is issued by a foundation that promotes the Solana ecosystem, readers should still regard it as an industry solution report, rather than a neutral audit conclusion.

The report argues that stablecoins can enable near-instant settlements, reduce costs, and reach a portion of the population who do not have bank accounts but do possess smartphones. It specifically mentions that approximately 1.3 billion adults worldwide do not have bank accounts, and nearly half of them own smartphones. However, the so-called “reachability” here is still conditional: a smartphone is merely an entry point; users also need access to the internet, a wallet, identity verification, local exchange services, and the ability to understand the risks associated with private keys or custodial services. The availability of on-chain addresses does not mean that recipients can already use stablecoins securely for rent, food, or medical expenses.

The four entry paths do not belong to the same risk level.

The report covers a range of topics from optimizing corporate funds with low risk to launching a complete and stable cryptocurrency platform, and compares the entry barriers, time to see results, and revenue models for different approaches. Remittance companies can use stablecoins to allocate their own funds, reducing the need for cross-border pre-financing; they can also use stablecoins for backend settlements, allowing customers to continue receiving and sending payments in their local currencies. Taking it a step further, they can provide wallet, savings, or credit services to recipients. The most ambitious path is to issue or operate a complete platform. The further along one goes, the greater the product potential, but so too do the responsibilities for compliance, liquidity, and customer protection.

Using stablecoins in the backend is often the most feasible approach. The user experience remains unchanged, and operators can transfer liquidity between countries using on-chain assets, followed by payments through local partners. This can reduce idle funds, but it still requires managing the redemption of stablecoins, chain congestion, counterparty risks, and foreign exchange exposures. If users are directly allowed to hold stablecoins, issues such as wallet security, accidental transfers, fraud, and asset freezes become front-end problems. The so-called "low cost" must take into account all associated expenses, not just the on-chain transaction fees.

The report lists a number of cases that are currently under construction. Western Union has launched USDPT issued by Anchorage Digital Bank, which is complemented by Digital Asset Network and Stablecard in collaboration with Rain; WorldRemit and Sendwave are backed by Zepz to offer Sendwave Wallet to recipients in over 100 countries; Tala and Huma Finance serve 13 million customers in emerging markets and have deployed a $50 million tokenized loan arrangement. Companies such as Yellow Card, Flutterwave, Bitso, Trace Finance, and Sphere Pay handle local exchanges in different markets. The presence of these cases indicates that the products have been developed, but it does not prove that each project has reached the same scale or level of profitability.

The last mile is still shaped by banks, the cash network, and regulation.

The most complex part of cross-border remittances is usually not the intermediary ledger, but rather the two ends of the transaction. The payer needs to top up in their local currency, and the recipient must receive assets that can be spent; operators are required to perform identity verification, anti-money laundering checks, sanctions screening, transaction monitoring, handle consumer complaints, and ensure data protection. Different countries have different definitions for stablecoins, foreign exchange, electronic currencies, and remittance licenses. What is feasible in one market for a particular product may require a completely different legal structure in another market.

Liquidity is also a key factor in determining costs. If the market for local stablecoins against the local currency is shallow, large transactions can result in slippage. Market makers require larger bid-ask spreads due to volatility and regulatory risks, and any savings on transaction fees on-chain may be offset by export costs. Pre-financing will not always disappear; it may shift from traditional correspondent bank accounts to exchanges, market makers, or local payment partners. True improvements should be reflected in less total capital occupation, a higher success rate, and more predictable final amounts received.

For the recipient, remittances are not isolated transactions. The report suggests that wallets can continue to be linked to savings, credit records, investments, or digital identities, which indeed has the potential to turn remittances from a dead end into a financial entry point; however, product bundling also brings new sales misguidance and privacy risks. A family that relies on remittances for their livelihood should not have to bear risks beyond basic payments due to a lack of understanding of stablecoin fluctuations, smart contracts, or custody terms. Default options, fee disclosures, and relief mechanisms must be more stringent than those of ordinary cryptocurrency applications.

Therefore, the most useful aspect of this report is that it breaks down stablecoin remittances into infrastructure layers, business models, and market corridors, rather than claiming that traditional remittances have been replaced. The scale of $905 billion and the average fee of 6.49% indicate significant room for improvement, and the traditional remittance processing time of three to five days also gives an advantage in terms of 24/7 settlement. However, the ultimate outcome will not be determined by TPS or individual transaction fees, but rather by local exports, compliance, payment settlements, and consumer protection. Stablecoins have entered the first generation of commercial products, and whether they can become the mainstream foundation for remittances still requires continuous verification through real transaction data.