New Taiwan Dollar Stablecoin Use Cases Need Clarification! Mega Financial Testing Shows: Large Cross-Border Remittances "Banks Still Have the Advantage"

Author: Fenrir, Crypto City

Mega Bank conducts global branch testing, comprehensive comparison of bank and stablecoin remittances
Whether stablecoins will disrupt traditional cross-border remittance systems has always been a hot topic in the financial market. On March 10, Mega Financial Holding and Mega Bank Chairman Dong Ru-bin announced the results of a practical test, comparing the efficiency and costs of traditional bank remittances versus stablecoin transactions through Mega Bank’s global branch network.
This test covered 17 countries and 25 overseas branches. Mega Bank arranged for overseas branch staff to open accounts in local banks and legitimate virtual asset exchanges under their personal names, then purchased US dollar stablecoins $USDT through exchanges. They transferred 50 $USDT each time to BitoPro, a Taiwan-based exchange, and compared this process with traditional bank cross-border remittance procedures.
The results showed that for smaller remittance amounts, stablecoins indeed offer speed and some cost advantages. However, when remittance amounts exceed about $7,000 USD, approximately NT$200,000, bank cross-border remittances still have overall cost advantages.
Dong Ru-bin stated that the traditional financial system is not as easily replaced as some market views suggest. Banks still possess complete infrastructure for fund clearing, compliance management, and customer service.

Small remittances with stablecoins are faster; large transactions favor banks
Mega Bank’s comparison of the two cross-border remittance methods showed that stablecoins have a clear speed advantage. Cross-border transfers using stablecoins typically complete within about 20 minutes. In contrast, bank remittances via the SWIFT system generally settle within about 2 hours.
In terms of fees, stablecoin transactions usually incur a fixed fee of about 1–2 USDT plus approximately 0.2% transaction fee. Bank cross-border remittances include a fixed postal fee of NT$300 and a 0.05% (five ten-thousandths) remittance fee, with total costs generally ranging from NT$420 to NT$1,100, with a cap on charges. Since stablecoin transactions use a proportional fee mechanism, the higher the remittance amount, the higher the transaction fee. When remittance amounts reach around $7,000 USD or NT$200,000, bank fees become lower than stablecoin fees.
Dong Ru-bin pointed out that for corporate clients, banks often absorb part of the remittance costs, so in large cross-border transactions, banks still have a more significant cost advantage.

Regulatory restrictions in multiple countries hinder stablecoin cross-border testing
The practical test also revealed that stablecoin cross-border remittances still face many restrictions under the global regulatory environment.
Out of 25 overseas branches, 13 could not complete stablecoin cross-border testing. The main reasons include local restrictions on stablecoin trading, lack of legitimate issuers, or exchanges only allowing certain stablecoins.

• For example, in Asian markets such as Japan, China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, and Myanmar, regulatory policies restrict stablecoin trading.
• In Europe, countries like France and the Netherlands, due to EU regulations on crypto assets, only permit certain stablecoin transactions.
• Even in financial hubs like New York, US exchanges only allow trading of $USDC, not $USDT. These regulatory differences create significant obstacles for stablecoin cross-border applications in practice.

Dong Ru-bin stated that stablecoin transaction processes often require linking a bank account through an exchange before purchasing, transferring, and exchanging. Different blockchain networks may also involve bridging costs, making the overall process not necessarily simpler than bank remittances.

Stablecoin use cases still need clarification; banks emphasize fair regulation
Mega Bank’s testing also compared domestic remittance scenarios within Taiwan. For domestic transfers, the bank generally completes transfers within 2 minutes, with no service fee, and interbank transfers cost about NT$15. Although stablecoin transfers can also be completed quickly, they still require paying about 2 USDT plus transaction fees, making them more expensive than bank transfers.
Dong Ru-bin pointed out that Taiwan’s payment infrastructure is already quite mature, with advantages in both efficiency and cost for domestic remittances. Therefore, the practical application scenarios for NT$ stablecoins still need further consideration.
He also emphasized that if the stablecoin industry develops in the future, issuers should adhere to the same regulatory standards as banks, including anti-money laundering, counter-terrorism financing, and KYC (Know Your Customer). Only with consistent regulatory standards can fair competition in the financial market be maintained.
Additionally, cross-border stablecoin remittances involve issues such as exchange rate spreads, bridging costs, fiat redemption convenience, and foreign exchange reporting. Dong Ru-bin stated that stablecoins do have application potential for small-value cross-border transactions, but for large-value cross-border remittances and corporate financial services, traditional banking systems still hold a clear advantage.