Why does the recipient still have to cash out after an international transfer?

Western Union seems to be going in that direction with its stablecoin card setup. Rain powers the card infrastructure behind it, so the recipient can spend the stablecoin balance through normal card rails instead of needing to off-ramp everything first.

How are you sending the money? There are a variety of ways you can send money digitally that others can use without withdrawing/sending.

I suspect this might be an American issue. Their banking system is quirky to put it politely.

Major banks in the U.S. have Zelle which allow you to transfer money directly into someone’s bank account.

Why do you agree? What he's describing is already how banking and international transfers work. You put in the account you want to send it to, and send it to that account. It can be their normal checking account.

Depending on your bank and theirs, a standard bank transfer could be free or very little cost and money should be immediately available once it hits (though could take a day or so for the transfer). Another option, if you use an international debit card like Wise or Revolut is to get them to sign up for one, too. At least for Wise (not sure about Revolut), transfers between Wise users are free and instant and immediately available on the card.

I live in the US and send/receive money to people easily without issue.

Let the money stay digital and make it spendable right away while still allowing a cash withdrawal when needed.

I've sent money into and out of the US plenty, and it goes to whatever account you send it to.

sort of agree bcs it could also help with smaller transfers. Paying a fixed withdrawal fee every time makes no sense when someone is only sending enough for a few daily expenses.

I think what you're looking for is less of a traditional remittance service and more of a digital wallet or neobank experience. For people who mainly need the money for online spending rather than cash withdrawal, a wallet + virtual card setup can sometimes remove that extra step.

I can see the appeal but I would not want the recipient locked into one card or one wallet

How about you send it directly to their accounts? I don't really understand this. You choose where you send it. You can send it to them, or to just a remittance service... Maybe you should give more info, because what you're saying you want is EXACTLY how it works already.

is anyone here using a remittance service that works more like that? Moneygram allows you to send money directly to someone's bank account internationally via your bank or debit card, though you might not like the exchange rate or fees.

Start studying DeFi and the use of USDC if you are going to stay on the move. There is another world where you can skip the modern banking system for far less cost. Good luck.

Use wise

You've spotted the actual gap in remittances. The rails mostly solved sending, but the money still lands somewhere the recipient has to unload. The category you're describing exists, it's a wallet with a spendable balance instead of a payout endpoint, money arrives as digital dollars and the recipient pays for things directly from it, converting to local currency only when they choose. The Western Union stablecoin move someone mentioned is the industry admitting this is where it goes. Full disclosure, I built one of these, VaultLeap, money lands as digital dollars in an account the recipient controls and they spend or convert from there. The honest caveat is this model only beats classic remittance when the recipient buys things digitally, if their life runs on cash, a cash-pickup service still wins. So the real question for your family's case: what do they spend on, and does it take digital payment? That answer decides which model fits.

The answer already exists if both sides hold stablecoins. Someone sends USDC to your wallet, you tap at a store through Apple Pay on BenPay, done. No withdrawal, no conversion, no waiting. The catch is getting the other person to set up a wallet which is still a 15 minute onboarding nobody wants to do. Once theyre past that though the "cash out" step stops existing entirely.

The friction you're describing makes total sense, and it varies widely by corridor and delivery method. For some destinations the gap is closing. In the Philippines for example, sending directly to GCash means the money lands in a balance your family can use to pay bills, buy load, or send to others right away without touching a bank at all. Similar story with M-Pesa in Kenya and a few other mobile wallet integrations depending on the country. The challenge is that it depends heavily on which mobile wallets are available in the destination country and whether the transfer service has a direct integration with them. Where those integrations exist, the experience is pretty close to what you're describing. Where they don't, the recipient still ends up at a bank or cash pickup point. Worth checking what delivery options are available for your specific corridor since it's gotten meaningfully better in the last couple of years for a lot of popular destinations. Full disclosure, I'm on the Remitly team, and the mobile wallet options have expanded a lot, but the honest answer is it still depends on where you're sending to.

Terrible idea IMO (assuming you are remitting in amounts big enough for them to live on, which I assume since they are paying it out to multiple further places on a regular basis). Banks typically have government guarantees and similar layers of safety around them, and any non-bank services that worked the way you described would very likely attract regulator attention as a money laundering risk and at some point be abruptly shut down. It’s really not that hard to divvy up income in bank to your various ways you need to spend it, that’s already how income and expenditure functions one way or another. If you have a relative suggesting that this is particularly hard, I suspect they are really worried about some other problem like having to pay remittance tax, tell their spouse they are receiving money, etc. Possible exceptions apply in some places where there are still many people unbanked, but if you’re sending it to a bank now, that’s not the case here.