Not really. Competition has improved pricing on some major corridors, but the broader problem is still very real.
The latest World Bank data puts the global average cost of sending $200 at 6.36%, more than double the UN Sustainable Development Goal of below 3%, and the UN also wants every remittance corridor to fall below 5%. Digital-only providers are cheaper, averaging around 3.54%, but even that is still above the UN target. (Remittance Prices)
Africa remains particularly challenging. World Bank data has consistently shown Sub-Saharan Africa among the most expensive regions for remittances, with some African corridors materially higher than the global average. (World Bank)
So the issue is not simply whether one app can advertise a £0 transfer fee on a popular route. The real question is what sits underneath that price: FX spreads, local liquidity, prefunding requirements, correspondent banks, payout partners and settlement delays.
Calen is approaching the problem at the infrastructure level.
Instead of relying entirely on money being prefunded and sitting idle across multiple destination markets, Calen can use stablecoin settlement rails behind the scenes to move value between markets more efficiently before paying out in local currency. The IMF has highlighted faster settlement and improved cross-border payment efficiency as potential benefits of stablecoin-based payment infrastructure. (IMF)
That matters not only for individuals sending money home, but also for businesses moving much larger amounts across borders, where liquidity, settlement speed and FX costs become even more important.
Our goal is therefore not to win by putting a temporary “zero fee” label on a transfer. It is to build the infrastructure that can support consistently competitive pricing, faster settlement and clearer FX for both people and businesses, even as we expand into more difficult corridors.
That is the part of the cross-border payments problem that is still very much unsolved.