Skip to content
RemitBridge

Reference

Where our numbers come from

Every statistic on this site, what it means, which publication it came from, and the exact places we use it.

Our Impact page says we try not to make a claim we cannot point at evidence for. This page is that pointing. If you find a figure on the site that is not listed here, that is a mistake worth telling us about.

  • $905 billion

    Remittances sent to low- and middle-income countries in 2024, the total migrant workers send home each year.

    Used on this site

    • Home: Section heading, "Migrants send $905 billion home a year"
    • Home: Figure: "Sent home each year"
    • Home: Input to our own $30bn gap calculation
    • Blog: Post 19, the numerator of every throughput calculation in it
    • Blog: Post 1, on what migrant workers send home in a year
  • 6.36%

    Global average cost of sending $200, as a share of the amount sent. This is the headline price the World Bank tracks each quarter.

    Source

    Remittance Prices Worldwide, Issue 54

    World Bank, September 2025 (Q3 2025 data)

    Used on this site

    • Home: Figure: "Average cost to send"
    • Home: Cost comparison bar, "Global average"
    • Home: Input to our own $30bn gap calculation
    • TrueCost: Benchmark marker on the receipt-check result scale
    • Yearly cost: The "at the global average" row, and the placeholder in the cost field
    • Fair rate: The for-scale note under the result
  • 3%

    The cost target UN member states agreed to reach by 2030. The current global average is more than double it.

    Used on this site

    • Home: Figure: "What it should be"
    • Home: Cost comparison bar, "UN target for 2030"
    • Home: Input to our own $30bn gap calculation
    • TrueCost: Benchmark marker on the receipt-check result scale
    • Yearly cost: The "at the UN target" row and the yearly saving line
    • Fair rate: The for-scale note under the result
    • Blog: Post 2, on the Wells Fargo result, and the dashed benchmark on its cost figure
    • Blog: Post 1, the cost gap figure and the case for closing it
  • 8.78%

    Average cost of sending $200 to Sub-Saharan Africa, the most expensive region in the world to receive money. Note this is the regional average. Three in four corridors into the region cost more than 10%.

    Used on this site

    • Home: Cost comparison bar, "Sub-Saharan Africa"
  • $200

    The benchmark transfer amount the World Bank uses to price every corridor it tracks, which is why it appears throughout this research.

    Source

    Remittance Prices Worldwide, Issue 54

    World Bank, September 2025 (Q3 2025 data)

    Used on this site

    • TrueCost: Default amount in the calculator
    • Blog: Post 2 follows one $200 transfer, and prices both providers on it
    • Blog: Post 19, as the divisor for every TPS figure, and as the benchmark it argues is not an average
    • Blog: Post 1, on why $200 is the amount researchers benchmark against
  • 348 corridors, Q3 2025

    Every corridor the World Bank priced in Q3 2025, 6,470 provider records at the $200 benchmark, converted by scripts/rpw.mjs into one file per corridor under public/data/rpw. The corridor average is the plain mean of every service, which reproduces the figures on the survey site to the decimal. The cheapest-three figure is our reading of the survey's SmaRT rule, not its published number, and is labelled as such.

    Source

    Remittance Prices Worldwide, full dataset 2011 to Q3 2025 (rpw_dataset_2011_2025_q3.xlsx)

    World Bank, via the World Bank Data Catalog, Q3 2025, published May 2026

    Used on this site

    • TrueCost: The corridor average and cheapest-three markers on the result scale
  • Live, per currency pair

    The mid-market exchange rate the receipt checker compares against. It is a daily reference rate, dated in the interface, not the rate at the instant a transfer was processed. When a pair cannot be priced the tool asks the reader for the rate and labels every result as using it.

    Source

    Frankfurter: daily reference exchange rates

    Frankfurter, aggregating central bank publications, Fetched live, dated per rate

    Used on this site

    • TrueCost: Mid-market rate shown beside the receipt form
    • TrueCost: Every figure in the receipt-check result
  • 4.12%

    Total cost of sending $200 from the US to Mexico with Wells Fargo's bank account transfer: a $6.00 fee plus a 1.12% exchange rate margin, against a mid-market reference of 18.75 MXN per USD. Delivered in under an hour.

    Source

    Remittance Prices Worldwide: Wells Fargo, USA to Mexico, bank account transfer

    World Bank, Q3 2025 collection, recorded August 2025

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 2, the Wells Fargo figures list
    • Blog: Post 2, the side-by-side comparison table
    • Blog: Post 2, the total cost figure
    • Blog: Post 2, the two-products figure, as the fee on the direct rail
    • Blog: Post 3, the opening and closing paragraphs, and the equation-at-work figure
  • 4.99%

    Total cost of the same $200 send through Delgado Travel's cash agent product, collected the same quarter: the same $6.00 fee against a wider 1.99% margin. Delivered next day.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 2, the Delgado Travel figures list
    • Blog: Post 2, the side-by-side comparison table
    • Blog: Post 2, the total cost figure
    • Blog: Post 3, the opening and closing paragraphs, and the equation-at-work figure
  • 2.55%

    Total cost of WorldRemit's bank account transfer from the UK to the Philippines on the $200 benchmark, priced in sterling: a GBP 2.99 fee on a GBP 120 send, plus a 0.06% exchange rate margin.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 3, the foreign-exchange markup section
    • Blog: Post 3, the fee-versus-total figure
  • 13.58%

    Total cost of Western Union's cash pickup from Italy to Egypt on the $200 benchmark, priced in euros: a EUR 6.50 fee on a EUR 140 send, plus an 8.94% exchange rate margin. The same record prices the $500 benchmark at EUR 12.00 on EUR 345, which is the post's evidence that a fee can be neither flat nor proportional.

    Source

    Remittance Prices Worldwide: Western Union, Italy to Egypt, cash at an agent

    World Bank, Q1 2025 collection, recorded 4 February 2025

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 3, the percentage fee section, on the two benchmark amounts
    • Blog: Post 3, the foreign-exchange markup section
    • Blog: Post 3, the fee-versus-total figure
  • 3% to 6%

    Exchange rate markup on Wells Fargo's standard international wire, on top of a flat $25 to $40 fee. A different product from the Mexico corridor rate above, and the reason a $200 transfer is not sent through it. Not a World Bank figure: these are independent fee comparisons, which is why the post names four of them rather than one.

    Source

    Wells Fargo standard international wire: fee and exchange rate markup

    Independent fee analyses by Monito, Wise, MoneyTransfer.store and IdealRemit, Compared 2025

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 2, the paragraph separating the direct rail from the classic SWIFT wire
    • Blog: Post 2, the two-products figure, as the fee range on the standard wire
  • Largest corridor

    US to Mexico is the largest single country-to-country remittance corridor in the world by dollar volume, which is why the case study uses it: a heavily tracked route has prices worth comparing.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 2, choosing the corridor for the case study
  • $200 and $500

    The two amounts Remittance Prices Worldwide surveys in every corridor. Set in 2008, adjusted once in 2009, frozen since so fee trends stay comparable over time. They are a fixed reference point, not a measured average transaction size, which is the distinction blog post 19 turns on.

    Source

    Remittance Prices Worldwide: methodology, on the $200 and $500 benchmark amounts

    World Bank, Amounts fixed 2008, adjusted once in 2009

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 19, the section asking whether $200 is an average or a benchmark
    • Blog: Post 3, in its sources, for how fee, margin and total cost are reported
  • 31.48%

    Average total cost of sending the $200 benchmark from South Africa to Malawi, Q3 2025, against 4.54% from the US to Mexico and 16.45% from South Africa to Botswana in the same quarter. Read off the corridor pages.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 4, the opening paragraph and the closing section
    • Blog: Post 4, the corridor gap figure
    • Blog: Post 4, the competition section and its figure, for Botswana
  • about 1.5% and 2.1%

    UAE to India and Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, among the cheapest corridors tracked. Not read from RPW directly: the post cites a secondary source that summarises RPW Q1 2025, and the figures are rounded there, so they are drawn as approximate.

    Source

    Money Transfer Statistics 2025, on the cheapest corridors

    InternationalMoneyTransfer.com, citing World Bank RPW Q1 2025, Updated 2026

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 4, the competition section and its figure
  • 10%+ and 37%

    Foreign correspondent counterparties lost between 2013 and 2015: South Africa more than 10%, Angola 37%. SWIFT's own data, released at its 2016 Business Forum South Africa; the post cites the FinTech Futures report of it. The same release repeats the World Bank's 2015 finding that more than half of surveyed banks in Africa reported a moderate or significant decline.

    Source

    De-risking in Africa on the rise, according to latest SWIFT data

    SWIFT press release, reported by FinTech Futures as "Sibos 2016: De-risking in Africa", October 2016, on 2013 to 2015 data

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 4, the correspondent-banking section
    • Blog: Post 4, the lost-counterparties figure
  • More than half

    Share of banks in Africa reporting a moderate or significant decline in correspondent relationships, in the World Bank's November 2015 survey, as cited by the IMF.

    Source

    The Withdrawal of Correspondent Banking Relationships: A Case for Policy Action

    IMF Staff Discussion Note 16/06, citing the World Bank's November 2015 survey, June 2016

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 4, the correspondent-banking section
  • 3.63% and 14.55%

    Average cost of sending $200 by mobile money, the cheapest instrument, and through banks, the most expensive, in Q1 2025.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 4, the payment infrastructure section
    • Blog: Post 4, the channel cost figure
  • $488

    Observed average principal per transaction on the US to Mexico corridor in 2023, with the average sender remitting about 16 times a year. Roughly 2.4 times the RPW benchmark, in the largest corridor in the world.

    Source

    Understanding the Recent Growth in Remittances to Mexico

    Inter-American Dialogue, 2023 data

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 19, on what a real observed average looks like
    • Blog: Post 19, the benchmark against observed average figure
    • Blog: Post 5, the opening paragraph and the sixteen-a-year figure
    • Blog: Post 13, the traffic profile section
  • $200 to $300

    What migrant workers typically send home every one to two months, described as a global pattern. A description of typical behaviour rather than a measured mean, which is why post 19 does not use it as one.

    Source

    Remittances matter: 8 facts you do not know about the money migrants send home

    United Nations and IFAD, Typical send of $200 to $300 every one to two months

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 19, on the global pattern
    • Blog: Post 5, on remittances as a recurring pattern
  • 15%

    Share of their earnings migrant workers send home on average; the rest stays in the country where it was earned. The UN's figure, which the post attributes to the UN and its sources list also credits to Our World in Data.

    Source

    Remittances matter: 8 facts you do not know about the money migrants send home

    United Nations and IFAD, Typical send of $200 to $300 every one to two months

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 5, the budgeting section
    • Blog: Post 5, the share-of-earnings figure
  • Larger amounts by bank, smaller informally

    From a survey of 1,680 migrants in the Netherlands: the amount sent is a key determinant of channel, with bank transfers preferred for large amounts and informal channels for small ones.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 5, the fixed fees section
  • Limited control over use

    The El Salvador field experiment, run with Banco Agrícola among Salvadoran migrants in Washington DC: migrants have limited ability to monitor or control how remittances are used, and offering them control over savings accounts at home changed how much was saved.

    Source

    Savings in Transnational Households: A Field Experiment among Migrants from El Salvador

    Ashraf, Aycinena, Martínez and Yang, Review of Economics and Statistics, 2015

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 5, the trust section
  • $865 billion

    Global remittance flows in 2023, the year before the $905 billion figure used elsewhere on this site.

    Source

    Migration and Development Brief: global remittance flows

    World Bank / KNOMAD, via the Migration Data Portal, $905bn in 2024, up from $865bn in 2023

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 19, the year-on-year growth figure
  • $586 billion

    Global remittance flows in 2015. Post 19 uses this and the 2024 figure to derive the growth rate it projects forward.

    Source

    Migration and Development Brief historical figures, 2015 to 2022 editions

    World Bank, via Business Standard coverage, 2015 global flows of $586bn

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 19, the growth over time scenario
  • 20% to 30%

    How far remittance transaction volumes rise during Ramadan and the run-up to Eid al-Fitr against other months, driven by zakat, holiday spending and pre-Eid salary disbursement.

    Source

    Ramadan drives surge in workers remittances from Qatar

    Qatar Tribune, Ramadan and Eid volumes 20% to 30% above other months

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 19, peak holiday-driven demand
    • Blog: Post 13, on peak demand
  • 39%

    Transaction volume increase reported by one US remittance provider over the eleven days to Christmas 2023, against the same period a year earlier. A single provider rather than a market-wide figure.

    Source

    BOSS Money Reports Strong Remittance Topline Increase over the Christmas Holiday Season

    IDT Corporation, Eleven days to Christmas 2023, year on year

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 19, peak holiday-driven demand
    • Blog: Post 13, on peak demand
  • 20%

    Projected rise in remittances to Haiti over the year following the 2010 earthquake. Sustained across months rather than concentrated in a burst, which is what makes emergency demand a different load profile from a holiday one.

    Source

    Haiti: Remittances Key to Earthquake Recovery

    World Bank, 2010, projecting the year after the earthquake

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 19, emergency-driven demand
    • Blog: Post 6, the natural disasters section
  • 19%

    Average fall in total household spending after a health shock in Jamaica, which remittances offset in full, but only for households without private health insurance.

    Source

    Do Remittances Help Smooth Consumption During Health Shocks? Evidence From Jamaica (IDB-WP-522)

    Inter-American Development Bank, Beuermann, Ruprah and Sierra, June 2014

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 6, the medical emergencies section
    • Blog: Post 6, the health shock figure
  • Moldova −36% / +61%; Fiji +24% / −7%

    Change in remittances and in unemployment in 2009: Moldova's remittances fell 36% as unemployment rose 61%; Fiji's rose 24% as unemployment fell 7%. Read off the blog post on 2026-09-21, which also reports a negative correlation across developing countries.

    Source

    Global economic crisis and the remittance-unemployment riddle

    World Bank, People Move blog, 2010, on 2009 data

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 6, the unemployment section
    • Blog: Post 6, the unemployment figure
  • Cash reserves, not livestock

    After the 1998 floods in Ethiopia, households receiving remittances drew on cash reserves through the drought that followed rather than selling livestock, and remittances rise after disasters in proportion to the size of the diaspora.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 6, the natural disasters section
    • Blog: Post 6, the two-paths figure
  • 0.04 fewer strategies per member away

    Farmers in northern Ghana cope with harvest failure by selling assets, cutting consumption, borrowing, and relying on family working elsewhere; each additional household member outside the community reduces the number of coping strategies adopted by 0.04. The post says such households need fewer of the costlier strategies; the paper measures fewer strategies overall.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 6, the crop failure section
  • Drier year, more remittances

    In the Thailand Vietnam Socio-Economic Panel, severe drought-like conditions in a year raise the likelihood a rural household receives remittances that year.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 6, the crop failure section
  • 152 countries, 1980 to 2005

    A rise in remittances during a crisis lowers the likelihood of civil war onset the following year, across World Bank remittance data for 152 countries.

    Source

    Migrant remittances and the onset of civil war

    Regan and Frank, Conflict Management and Peace Science, as discussed by Ari and Koç, 2014, on 1980 to 2005 data

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 6, the political instability section
  • about 5%

    Fall in recorded remittances to low- and middle-income countries through the 2008 to 2009 financial crisis, against far steeper falls in other international capital flows. The same review finds remittances sometimes countercyclical and sometimes procyclical.

    Source

    Remitting through the pandemic

    Royal Geographical Society, reviewing Vargas-Silva and Ruiz, 2020

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 6, the caveat section
  • 15 to 65,000 TPS

    The spread of throughput figures advertised across thirteen blockchains, as they circulate in comparison graphics. Listed here as claims, not measurements: none states its workload, hardware, validator count or definition of a transaction, several are theoretical maxima rather than observed mainnet throughput, and the compilation includes Terra, which stopped operating in 2022. Blog post 17 uses them as the thing being examined rather than as evidence, and the site holds no position on whether any individual figure is accurate.

    Source

    Transactions per second between blockchains, a compilation of advertised figures

    Solana Daily, on X, Undated; it lists Terra, which stopped operating in 2022

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 17, the figure showing the claims the post goes on to take apart
  • $625 million

    Drained from the Ronin bridge in March 2022. Its withdrawals needed 5 of 9 validator signatures, and attackers obtained 5: four held by the operator, one through an improperly revoked backdoor. Blog post 15 uses it for the structural lesson rather than the amount: a small validator set is what makes a sidechain fast, and it is also what makes it worth attacking.

    Source

    Analyzing the Ronin bridge hack

    Metaversal, Bankless, March 2022

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 15, on validator design
    • Blog: Post 15, the figure on the Ronin compromise
  • $611 million

    Taken from Poly Network in 2021 through a flaw in how the bridge contract decided who could move its funds. A different failure from Ronin, and the reason blog post 15 treats the bridge as its own system with its own bugs rather than as plumbing between two secure chains.

    Source

    Bridges Burned: inside the five loudest Web3 bridge hacks

    HackenProof, On the Poly Network contract-authorisation exploit

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 15, on bridges as a second attack surface
  • ~30 minutes

    How often Polygon publishes a checkpoint of its sidechain state to Ethereum. It is why a transfer has two moments that could each be called arrival: confirmed on the sidechain in seconds, and settled on the main chain only at the next checkpoint.

    Source

    Polygon PoS architecture: Heimdall, Bor and checkpointing

    Polygon documentation, with CryptoForInnovation, Accessed 2026

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 15, the two-arrivals figure
  • 2,488 TPS

    Zilliqa's 2017 testnet result, using 6 shards and 3,600 nodes run in a single AWS region, Singapore. Blog post 17 cites it as a real number produced under laboratory conditions: no inter-continental latency, no adversarial nodes, no competing traffic and no sustained multi-day run. The figure describes what sharding did in that test, not what a distributed production network would sustain.

    Source

    Zilliqa Testnet v1.0 Release: Codename Red Prawn

    Zilliqa, via Easy Crypto project history, 2017 testnet

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 17, on short bursts against sustained load
    • Blog: Post 17, the figure listing the conditions the test did not face
  • 1973

    The year SWIFT was founded. It is a messaging cooperative: it carries payment instructions between banks and never holds or moves funds itself, which is the distinction blog post 7 is built around.

    Source

    SWIFT: founding, structure, and function as a messaging cooperative

    Wikipedia, cross-referenced against SWIFT message type documentation, Founded 1973

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 7, the section on what SWIFT is
  • Fedwire and T2

    The real-time gross settlement systems named in blog post 7. Settlement in these happens in central bank money, which is what makes it final. The post names T2 rather than TARGET2, which it replaced in March 2023, and it separates CHIPS from Fedwire: CHIPS nets payments against each other and settles through Fedwire, so it is not itself a gross settlement system.

    Source

    Fedwire Funds Service: real-time gross settlement operated by the Federal Reserve

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Accessed 2026

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 7, the RTGS section
  • ~7 TPS

    Bitcoin's practical throughput: blocks of about 1 MB every ten minutes, at around 250 bytes a transaction. Blog post 13 sets it against the 14 TPS a remittance network would need at a 10% share.

    Source

    Transactions Per Second (TPS): definition and meaning

    PrimeXBT, On Bitcoin at ~7 TPS, the December 2017 congestion, and Ethereum fees in the 2021 DeFi boom

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 13, on what Bitcoin and Ethereum can handle
    • Blog: Post 13, the capacity figure
  • 15 to 30 TPS

    Ethereum's practical throughput, after recent increases to its gas limit. More room than Bitcoin, but below the ordinary-demand floor blog post 19 works out.

    Source

    Blockchain fee comparison: gas fees across 15+ chains

    Spark, On Ethereum throughput of roughly 15 to 30 transactions per second

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 13, on what Bitcoin and Ethereum can handle
    • Blog: Post 13, the capacity figure
  • $1 to over $50

    Average Bitcoin fees during the December 2017 congestion, while confirmation times went from about 10 minutes to 30 to 60. One episode, not a typical week.

    Source

    Transactions Per Second (TPS): definition and meaning

    PrimeXBT, On Bitcoin at ~7 TPS, the December 2017 congestion, and Ethereum fees in the 2021 DeFi boom

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 13, on congestion pricing transactions out
    • Blog: Post 13, the congestion figure
  • $50 to $100

    Typical Ethereum fees per transaction during the 2021 DeFi boom. The post's source list attributes this to Spark; the figure is in the PrimeXBT page, which is cited here.

    Source

    Transactions Per Second (TPS): definition and meaning

    PrimeXBT, On Bitcoin at ~7 TPS, the December 2017 congestion, and Ethereum fees in the 2021 DeFi boom

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 13, on congestion pricing transactions out
    • Blog: Post 13, the congestion figure
  • 6 confirmations

    The convention for treating a Bitcoin payment as safe from a chain reorganisation, roughly an hour of blocks, derived from the probability analysis in the original whitepaper.

    Source

    Chain reorganization (reorg)

    Spark, On the six-confirmation convention from the Bitcoin whitepaper's probability analysis

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 13, on confirmation time and finality
    • Blog: Post 13, the waiting-time figure
  • 12 to 15 minutes

    Ethereum's economic finality, reached at epoch checkpoints: the point where reversing a transaction would mean destroying a large share of all staked ETH.

    Source

    Transaction finality

    Bit.com Knowledge Hub, On Ethereum economic finality after roughly 12 to 15 minutes

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 13, on confirmation time and finality
    • Blog: Post 13, the waiting-time figure

Numbers we worked out ourselves

These are not published figures. They are arithmetic on the cited numbers above, shown here with the method so anyone can check it or disagree with it.

  • 75% to 99.98%

    The share of three-party remittance transactions that would touch more than one shard, as the shard count rises from 2 to 64. Method: with a sender, a conversion provider and a recipient assigned independently and uniformly across n shards, all three land together with probability 1/n squared, so the cross-shard share is 1 minus that. Ours, not measured, and uniform assignment is a generous assumption: real networks concentrate load, which makes it worse rather than better. It is drawn to show the shape of the effect the cited sharding research reports.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 14, the figure on what more shards actually buys
  • ~$30 billion

    Our own estimate of what closing the gap would return to families each year. Method: (6.36% − 3%) × $905bn. It is arithmetic on the two cited figures above, not a published number, and it assumes the average rate applies evenly across all flows.

    Used on this site

    • Home: Figure: "The gap, every year"
    • Blog: Post 1, on what closing the cost gap would return to families each year
  • $8.24 and $9.95

    What each provider keeps out of $200 on the US to Mexico corridor. Method: the fee, plus the gap between the mid-market rate and the rate applied, converted back to dollars. Wells Fargo, $6.00 + (18.75 - 18.54) x 200 / 18.75. Delgado Travel, the same sum on 18.74 and 18.37. Both rates are cited above; the subtraction is ours. The split matters more than the total: the fee is the same $6.00 on both, so it is the larger share of each, and the whole $1.71 gap between the two providers is exchange rate margin.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 2, the worked arithmetic under each provider
    • Blog: Post 2, the total cost figure
  • 15.5% to 26%

    What Wells Fargo's ordinary international wire would cost on $200, fee and markup together. Method: the flat $25 to $40 expressed as a share of $200, plus the 3% to 6% markup cited above. Both ends are estimates on estimates, which is why the figure draws the range hollow rather than picking a number in it.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 2, the two-products figure
  • 57 to 287 TPS

    Average transactions per second a network carrying all global remittance volume would have to sustain, across assumed average transaction sizes from $500 down to $100. Method: $905 billion divided by the assumed size, divided by 31,536,000 seconds in a year. The flows figure is cited above; the division is ours, and the fivefold spread comes entirely from the assumption, not the arithmetic. The realistic target is roughly a tenth of this, because no single architecture carries the whole market.

    Used on this site

    • Blog: Post 19, the baseline table and the TPS by size figure
    • Blog: Post 19, the market share and closing range figures
    • Blog: Post 13, the capacity comparison and its figure

Full reference list