[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Grana Research [@granaresearch](/creator/twitter/granaresearch) on x XX followers Created: 2025-07-21 07:55:22 UTC Wise $WISE $WISE.L currently has the lowest take rate in the industry, charging customers just 0.52%. Western Union's $WU take rate is ~3.5%, and Remitly's $RELY is 2.3%. This massive gap is primarily the result of Wise’s robust infrastructure. Why can’t competitors replicate this infrastructure? Traditional banks don’t pursue this for two main reasons: 1/ Money transfers represent a negligible share of their business — roughly XXX% of total banking revenue, and about 1-1.5% of consumer banking income. 2/ There is an informal barter system between banks, where correspondent banking is just one part of a broader service exchange. If a bank stops using a counterparty’s correspondent accounts, the counterparty may retaliate by halting other services — such as clearing. Money Transfer Operators (MTOs) cannot replicate Wise’s infrastructure due to a combination of regulatory, technological, and economic barriers. First, a large portion of their operations still relies on cash disbursements via local agents, which requires maintaining agent networks — a cost-intensive structure that typically accounts for around half of MTOs’ total operating expenses. Second, the primary user base of MTOs consists of migrant workers and blue-collar customers, with very low value-per-customer (VPC) — less than $XXX at Western Union and MoneyGram. These small-ticket transactions often fall under simplified due diligence thresholds, allowing MTOs to operate without building full KYC/AML systems. By contrast, direct integration with national payment systems requires comprehensive audits of all KYC/AML processes before licensing is granted. Third, MTOs typically compete in low-price corridors (e.g. India, the Philippines) and often subsidize transfers to gain market share. For companies generating only $1-2 in annual revenue per user, it is economically irrational to invest $20-30 million in direct integration with real-time payment rails. Building a KYC/AML framework comparable to Wise’s can take years, even with the right team and capital. KYC/AML is not just a technical stack — it includes reporting workflows, independent audits, coordination with FIUs and tax authorities, and maintaining compliance governance across jurisdictions. As a result, nearly all of Wise’s competitors still rely on partner banks and payment aggregators. Direct, full-stack access to local payment systems remains extremely rare — and Wise is years ahead in this regard.  XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [money](/topic/money) [$wisel](/topic/$wisel) [$wise](/topic/$wise) [coins defi](/topic/coins-defi) [$wu](/topic/$wu) [stocks financial services](/topic/stocks-financial-services) [$rely](/topic/$rely) [Post Link](https://x.com/granaresearch/status/1947203736121540726)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Grana Research @granaresearch on x XX followers
Created: 2025-07-21 07:55:22 UTC
Wise $WISE $WISE.L currently has the lowest take rate in the industry, charging customers just 0.52%. Western Union's $WU take rate is ~3.5%, and Remitly's $RELY is 2.3%. This massive gap is primarily the result of Wise’s robust infrastructure. Why can’t competitors replicate this infrastructure?
Traditional banks don’t pursue this for two main reasons:
1/ Money transfers represent a negligible share of their business — roughly XXX% of total banking revenue, and about 1-1.5% of consumer banking income.
2/ There is an informal barter system between banks, where correspondent banking is just one part of a broader service exchange. If a bank stops using a counterparty’s correspondent accounts, the counterparty may retaliate by halting other services — such as clearing.
Money Transfer Operators (MTOs) cannot replicate Wise’s infrastructure due to a combination of regulatory, technological, and economic barriers.
First, a large portion of their operations still relies on cash disbursements via local agents, which requires maintaining agent networks — a cost-intensive structure that typically accounts for around half of MTOs’ total operating expenses.
Second, the primary user base of MTOs consists of migrant workers and blue-collar customers, with very low value-per-customer (VPC) — less than $XXX at Western Union and MoneyGram. These small-ticket transactions often fall under simplified due diligence thresholds, allowing MTOs to operate without building full KYC/AML systems.
By contrast, direct integration with national payment systems requires comprehensive audits of all KYC/AML processes before licensing is granted.
Third, MTOs typically compete in low-price corridors (e.g. India, the Philippines) and often subsidize transfers to gain market share. For companies generating only $1-2 in annual revenue per user, it is economically irrational to invest $20-30 million in direct integration with real-time payment rails.
Building a KYC/AML framework comparable to Wise’s can take years, even with the right team and capital. KYC/AML is not just a technical stack — it includes reporting workflows, independent audits, coordination with FIUs and tax authorities, and maintaining compliance governance across jurisdictions.
As a result, nearly all of Wise’s competitors still rely on partner banks and payment aggregators. Direct, full-stack access to local payment systems remains extremely rare — and Wise is years ahead in this regard.
XXXXX engagements
Related Topics money $wisel $wise coins defi $wu stocks financial services $rely