Mega Bank’s latest cross-border remittance test points to a clear dividing line between stablecoins and traditional bank transfers. According to the bank’s results, NT$200,000 marks the point where the cost advantage shifts: below that level, USDT was faster and cheaper; above it, bank wires regained the upper hand through fee caps, pricing flexibility, and stronger compliance support.
The test ran for three months and involved staff across 25 overseas branches in 17 countries, with stablecoin transfers and conventional wire payments carried out in parallel. Mega Bank chairman Tung Jui-bin presented the findings on March 10. Based on the disclosed data, USDT transfers usually arrived within 20 minutes, while SWIFT transfers under ideal conditions took about 2 hours and could still be affected by time zones and holidays. On speed alone, blockchain settlement was clearly ahead.
USDT led in small transfers under NT$200,000
Mega Bank’s breakdown showed the strongest case for stablecoins in low-value remittances. The bank estimated the USDT cost structure at roughly 2 USDT plus a 0.2% transaction fee. For transfers below NT$200,000, that total came in lower than the telecom and remittance charges typically applied by banks. In personal cross-border transfers that need to settle quickly, that gap can matter.
The picture changed once transaction size increased. Traditional banks cap fees at around NT$1,100, and premium clients may also negotiate better terms. Stablecoins move in the opposite direction under percentage-based pricing: the larger the amount, the higher the transfer cost. Add foreign exchange spreads and taxes, and the cost edge disappears in large-value payments. The effect was especially visible in corporate remittances.
Only 12 of 25 branches cleared the stablecoin route
The more serious constraint came from regulation. Out of 25 branches, only 12 were able to complete the stablecoin-related process, while 13 failed because of local legal restrictions. The test exposed how fragmented the regulatory environment still is for stablecoin-based cross-border payments.
Mega Bank cited several examples. China and Hong Kong did not allow the activity under local rules. Some jurisdictions, including New York, recognized USDC but not USDT. In the European Union, the preference leaned toward the euro stablecoin EURC, while compliant virtual asset service providers, or VASPs, were lacking. That means the blockchain leg may be fast, but fiat on-ramp and off-ramp requirements, token eligibility, and local compliance checks can still block execution.
Tung Jui-bin says the two systems are complementary
Tung framed the exercise as a clarification of roles rather than a winner-takes-all contest. His conclusion was direct: stablecoins fit personal, low-value, time-sensitive transfers, while banks remain central for large transactions, corporate use cases, and payments that require foreign exchange reporting, KYC, AML, and institutional safeguards.
The result leaves a split market for now. Stablecoins hold the advantage in settlement speed on-chain, while banks retain the stronger position in compliance, risk controls, and global reach.