Remittance Cost Calculator
Calculate Your Remittance Fees
%
Enter your remittance amount to see how much you'll lose to fees.
Every year, over 30 billion dollars flows into Bangladesh from its diaspora. That’s more than the country earns from its famous garment exports. For millions of families, this money isn’t just income-it’s food, medicine, school fees, and roofs over their heads. Yet, despite this massive inflow, using cryptocurrency to send money home remains illegal. And it’s not just discouraged-it’s actively blocked by law.
Why Remittances Are Booming in Bangladesh
In fiscal year 2024-25, Bangladesh hit a record $30 billion in remittances. That’s a 27% jump from the year before. March 2025 alone saw $3.29 billion come in-the highest monthly total ever recorded. July 2025 wasn’t far behind at $2.48 billion. These aren’t random spikes. They’re the result of deliberate policy changes. The Central Bank of Bangladesh, called Bangladesh Bank, cracked down on informal systems like hundi, which had long been used to move money outside the official banking system. These networks were risky, untraceable, and often exploited by criminals. By replacing them with regulated digital channels, the government made it safer and faster for workers abroad to send money home. Now, people use mobile apps like bKash and Nagad. Banks offer direct transfers. Even post offices handle remittances. The system is faster than ever: 85% of transactions now clear in under four hours thanks to a new Real-Time Gross Settlement system launched in September 2025. The government’s own Remittance Direct app, rolled out in August 2025, has already processed $1.2 billion with fees as low as 3.8%-below the national average of 5.2%.But Crypto? Still Forbidden
While the formal system is improving, one option remains completely off-limits: cryptocurrency. Since 2017, Bangladesh Bank has banned all cryptocurrency transactions under Section 33 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. That law gives the central bank sweeping power to control foreign currency flows. In September 2025, they issued Warning Notice No. BB/CC/2025/17, making it clear: any bank, agent, or app that facilitates crypto-based remittances faces license revocation and criminal prosecution. This isn’t a technical issue. It’s a political one. Bangladesh Bank officials say crypto threatens monetary sovereignty. They worry about losing control over the taka, the national currency. They fear anonymous transactions could fuel money laundering or destabilize foreign exchange reserves. Deputy Governor Ahmed Munas said it plainly in September 2025: “Cryptocurrencies pose unacceptable risks to monetary sovereignty and financial stability.” Compare this to India or Pakistan. Both countries have started exploring regulated crypto frameworks for remittances. India allows crypto exchanges to operate under strict KYC rules. Pakistan’s central bank has piloted crypto-based remittance pilots with Gulf countries. Bangladesh, however, isn’t even testing the waters.
What Do People Actually Want?
Behind the official stance, there’s frustration. In Facebook groups like “Bangladeshi Expats Worldwide,” with over half a million members, 63% of users say they’re unhappy with current remittance fees and delays. Many say they’d use crypto if it were legal. But only 12% have even tried it-because the risk is too high. Getting caught could mean fines, blocked bank accounts, or worse. On Reddit, users share mixed experiences. One person from Dubai said their $500 transfer via bKash arrived in 12 hours. Another from the UK complained they paid 7% in fees for a $300 transfer, even though the official rate was lower. These aren’t edge cases. They’re everyday realities. The World Bank says Bangladesh’s average remittance fee is 6.5%-far above the global target of 3%. Crypto could slash that. Bitcoin and Ethereum transfers can cost less than 1% in some cases. But in Bangladesh, even talking about it publicly is risky.Why Doesn’t Bangladesh Just Try It?
Some experts argue the country is missing an opportunity. The IMF’s mission chief for Bangladesh, Masahiko Takeda, said in July 2025: “Digital channels could enhance remittance efficiency, but Bangladesh must first strengthen its regulatory framework.” That’s the key. The central bank doesn’t say crypto is impossible-it says they’re not ready. And they’re not alone. Most of the world’s central banks still don’t allow private cryptocurrencies for cross-border payments. Only a few, like El Salvador, have gone all-in. Bangladesh’s leadership isn’t interested in being a pioneer. They want stability. They’re also watching China’s digital yuan and India’s UPI system. Bangladesh plans to connect with India’s Unified Payments Interface by mid-2026. That will make sending money from Indian workers easier and cheaper. But even that’s a centralized, government-controlled system-not crypto.
The Human Cost of the Ban
The ban isn’t just about policy-it’s about people. A migrant worker in Malaysia sent $500 home through a formal channel. It took 10 days. Fees ate up $300. He lost nearly two-thirds of his earnings. He didn’t know about crypto. Even if he did, he wouldn’t risk it. He’s not a tech expert. He’s a construction worker trying to feed his kids. In rural areas, 18% of recipients still can’t access digital remittances because they don’t have ID cards, bank accounts, or mobile registration. Crypto wouldn’t solve that. But a better, cheaper, faster official system would. The real question isn’t whether crypto could work. It’s whether Bangladesh is willing to fix the system it already has.What’s Next?
Bangladesh Bank says it aims for 95% digital remittance processing by 2027. That’s ambitious. And good. But their roadmap explicitly excludes cryptocurrency. No pilot programs. No research partnerships. No exploration. The Asian Development Bank predicts remittances will hit $33-35 billion by 2028. Some economists think that’s optimistic without cutting fees and expanding access. Others believe the current growth is temporary-driven by political change and global labor trends. One thing is clear: the money keeps coming. Workers abroad are sending more than ever. The infrastructure is improving. But the door to crypto stays locked. Until the central bank changes its mind, or the people demand change, Bangladesh will keep relying on banks, apps, and agents to move billions-while its diaspora watches other countries experiment with faster, cheaper alternatives.For now, crypto remains a forbidden tool. Not because it’s technically impossible. But because the system isn’t ready to let go of control.
Tiffany M
December 10, 2025 AT 22:07Wow, I had no idea Bangladesh was hitting $3.29B in remittances in a single month. That’s insane. And the fact that crypto’s still banned while they’re rolling out real-time systems? Feels like they’re building a Ferrari but refusing to put gas in it.
Abhishek Bansal
December 11, 2025 AT 04:37lol crypto banned? guess they’re still stuck in 2017
Rakesh Bhamu
December 13, 2025 AT 02:55I’ve sent money to family in Dhaka for years. bKash works, but the fees still hurt. If crypto was legal and safe, I’d use it in a heartbeat. No need to wait for banks to catch up-people are already doing it underground. Why not regulate it instead of punishing folks?
Lois Glavin
December 14, 2025 AT 10:05This is so human. I keep thinking about that worker in Malaysia who lost $300 on a $500 transfer. That’s not finance-it’s theft by bureaucracy. If we can make apps faster, why not make them fairer too?
Scot Sorenson
December 15, 2025 AT 19:25Let me get this straight: Bangladesh spends millions building a digital remittance infrastructure that still charges 6.5%... but crypto? ‘Too risky.’ Meanwhile, El Salvador’s citizens are using Bitcoin to buy coffee. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Patricia Whitaker
December 16, 2025 AT 03:23Ugh. Another ‘let’s fix the system’ post. Newsflash: the system works fine for the people running it. Why should they care if a construction worker loses half his paycheck? They’re not the ones sending it.
Joey Cacace
December 18, 2025 AT 02:21It’s fascinating how regulatory fear often masks institutional inertia. Cryptocurrencies aren’t inherently dangerous-they’re just new. And new things scare people who’ve spent decades controlling the flow of money. But change doesn’t have to mean chaos.
Toni Marucco
December 18, 2025 AT 17:37The real tragedy isn’t the ban-it’s the assumption that people don’t want innovation. We’ve seen this before with mobile banking in Kenya. People didn’t wait for permission to adopt M-Pesa. They just did it. Bangladesh’s diaspora isn’t asking for permission-they’re asking for dignity.
Albert Chau
December 18, 2025 AT 18:41It’s amusing how Westerners act like crypto is some moral imperative. Bangladesh has a sovereign currency. It has a fragile economy. You don’t just let unregulated digital tokens flood in and hope for the best. That’s not progress-that’s recklessness.
Anselmo Buffet
December 20, 2025 AT 02:24They’re not banning crypto because it’s dangerous. They’re banning it because they can’t tax it, track it, or control it. And in a country where power means control, that’s unacceptable.
Steven Ellis
December 20, 2025 AT 20:55There’s a quiet irony here. Bangladesh’s formal remittance system is one of the most advanced in the Global South-yet it’s still plagued by fees that eat into the lives of the poorest. The answer isn’t necessarily crypto. It’s pressure. Pressure on banks. Pressure on regulators. Pressure to stop treating migrant labor like a revenue stream.
Taylor Fallon
December 22, 2025 AT 09:49imagine if the same energy spent banning crypto went into making bKash free for under $100 transfers. or expanding mobile registration to rural elders who dont have ID cards. we’re so obsessed with shiny new tech we forget the real problem is access, not innovation.
Candace Murangi
December 24, 2025 AT 02:59As someone who’s lived in both the U.S. and India, I’ve seen how remittances shape entire villages. Bangladesh’s system is impressive, but it’s still a closed garden. Crypto isn’t the enemy-it’s the door they’re too scared to open. Maybe one day they’ll realize control isn’t the same as safety.
Claire Zapanta
December 25, 2025 AT 11:00Let’s not pretend this is about stability. This is about fear. Fear that if people start using crypto, they’ll realize the taka is losing value. Fear that the central bank’s entire model is built on outdated colonial-era control. They’re not protecting the economy-they’re protecting their own power.
JoAnne Geigner
December 26, 2025 AT 11:42It’s interesting how the same people who say ‘crypto is dangerous’ also say ‘remittance fees are too high.’ Why not let people choose? If they want to use Bitcoin to send $50 to their sister, why should the state stop them? Isn’t autonomy part of financial dignity?
Sarah Luttrell
December 27, 2025 AT 13:34Oh please. Let’s just hand over our currency to some anonymous devs in Singapore. Next thing you know, the taka will be worth less than the paper it’s printed on. This isn’t progress-it’s surrender.
Heath OBrien
December 29, 2025 AT 11:33crypto? nah. just make the app free and everyone wins. stop overthinking this.
Kathryn Flanagan
December 30, 2025 AT 06:34I’ve talked to so many Bangladeshi families who don’t even know what crypto is. The real issue isn’t regulation-it’s education. You can’t expect a grandmother in Sylhet to use a blockchain app if she’s never used a smartphone. The government needs to fix the basics first: ID cards, literacy, mobile access. Then maybe, just maybe, they can think about crypto. But not now. Not yet.
Taylor Farano
December 30, 2025 AT 19:22So let me get this straight: you’re mad that Bangladesh won’t let people use a system that’s been used to launder billions and fund terrorist networks? And you think that’s a ‘human rights’ issue? You’re not helping. You’re just echoing Silicon Valley propaganda.
Ike McMahon
December 31, 2025 AT 20:05It’s not about crypto vs. banks. It’s about whether we treat migrant workers like humans or transaction numbers. The system’s flawed. Fix it. Don’t just ban alternatives.
Bridget Suhr
January 1, 2026 AT 19:19the fact that they’re connecting to india’s upi by 2026 is actually a huge step. why not just make that the model? no crypto needed. just better, cheaper, faster. and if crypto comes later? cool. but don’t make it the focus.
Hari Sarasan
January 3, 2026 AT 13:03It is imperative to underscore that the central bank's preemptive prohibition of decentralized digital assets is not merely prudent-it is an existential safeguard against the erosion of monetary sovereignty, the destabilization of foreign exchange reserves, and the proliferation of illicit financial flows predicated upon pseudonymous, non-auditable transactional architectures. The invocation of Section 33 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not an anachronism; it is a bulwark against financial anarchy.