Crypto isn’t fixing the remittance travesty — but it could: Opinion

One promise of technology was that it would make everyone’s lives easier and uplift people all over the globe. We’re falling behind on this promise, especially to those who need it the most. One area where this is most apparent is remittances — the cross-border payments that migrant workers send back to their home country to help sustain their loved ones.

The remittances industry is currently predicted to have a market value of US$107 billion by the year 2030 with over one billion people relying on remittance services for sending money across borders. Around 75% of these remittance payments help families cover basic necessities, of which 50% are sent to households in rural areas.  

Despite being a lifeline for poor communities, the mechanisms to get money from one place to the next remain costly, inefficient and unfair to the people who need money the most. Vulnerable communities who have the most need for remittance services often pay disproportionately high fees to send even small amounts of money home.

On top of that, the user experience of remittance services is often complex and slow. Remittances are a lifeline to poor communities, and delays have a negative impact.

Traditional fintech profits from inefficiency

Cross-border payments have always been a part of the larger global economy. As a result of the uneven distribution of wealth across countries, it is not a choice but an economic necessity.

While remittances once consisted of envelopes of cash sent with strangers crossing the border for a small cut, technological development has allowed the remittance middlemen to hold all the cards. For example, providers such as MoneyGram and Western Union are ubiquitous, and their dominance has allowed them to often charge higher fees than their traditional banking counterparts.

The lack of competition in the remittance industry has given way to an oligopoly market with a handful of firms having a substantial influence in the industry. Their goal is not altruistic but rather profit, resulting in terms that work best for them.

For instance, remittance companies sometimes hold onto funds for a period of time to take advantage of favorable exchange rates, creating artificial delays and driving up transaction fees.

In most instances, those using these platforms are charged a percentage of the transacted amount. Globally, sending remittances costs around 6.25% of the transaction amount.

The percentage varies based on the transacted amount with the percentage dropping as the amount increases. This means that people who send smaller amounts of money end up paying a higher percentage of their income in fees, compared to those who send larger amounts of money. This is a burden that hits poor communities particularly hard as they often send and receive small amounts of money.