Summary

Mario Cibelli argues that Remitly’s operating thesis has strengthened while its valuation narrative has collapsed. Since his prior appearance near a $13.50 share price, revenue and gross profit have risen about 35%, EBITDA has increased well over 200%, and Q2 GAAP operating income swung from roughly negative $15 million to positive $15 million. The profit inflection he previously anticipated is no longer prospective: “It’s happened. It’s happening right now.” The remittance-tax debate that weighed on the shares was resolved in Remitly’s favor, with a 1% tax on cash remittances starting January 1; Cibelli views ICE and deportation fears as visible but not something that should affect the company for a period of time given its opportunity.
Stablecoins have made $RELY part of an indiscriminate loser basket despite no visible damage to its results. The market has paired shorts in Remitly, Visa, Mastercard, $DLO, Western Union, Euronet, and PayPal against longs such as Robinhood, Circle, and Coinbase; Cibelli calls the idea that stablecoins will commoditize Remitly “patently wrong” and “very likely to be wrong.” His analogy is the post-election long-Tesla/short-Uber trade: powerful while the narrative held, then vulnerable to an unwind.
The supposedly free stablecoin remittance stops being free when recipients need spendable local currency. A transfer left on-chain can move cheaply, but remittance money is sent more than monthly and generally consumed quickly on food, utilities, healthcare, phones, and other bills. Once USDC must be off-ramped into pesos or another fiat currency, conversion friction and cost arise, while KYC, AML, fraud, payout, and reliable-service costs remain; “they’re not some magical pixie dust thing just darting all around the world.”
Remitly is already the low-cost operator—the “Costco of the remittance space”—and could become a stablecoin beneficiary rather than a casualty. Its weighted take rate is about 2.1%, versus about 3.55% for a digital remittance player in World Bank data, while transaction costs are approximately 75 basis points and its net take rate is only around 1%-1.5%. Stablecoins could reduce prefunding and working-capital needs, and Remitly could accept the cheaper funding method, pass savings through, and preserve unit economics.
The central underwriting variable is margin expansion, not whether growth stays spectacular forever. Cibelli’s downside case is that Remitly has penetrated more of its market than assumed and becomes a GDP-like grower, but his model already takes growth from 20%-21% in 2026 down to 13.5% through 2030. At a 19% operating margin—around Western Union’s current 18.5%-19% and below the CEO’s stated long-term ambition—the model produces roughly $500 million of 2030 GAAP after-tax net income and a terminal value multiple below four times.
Remitly One and Remitly Business are inexpensive options rather than requirements for the thesis. Walker questioned whether a $10 monthly subscription whose headline benefit is a $250 “send now, pay later” bridge has coherent product-market fit; Cibelli conceded the bundle might require price and benefit changes but rejected the idea that Remitly intends to become a bank. Business is initially aimed at microbusinesses—such as a US accountant paying four or five workers in the Philippines—not at attacking Wise upmarket.
At roughly 8.5 times next year’s EBITDA, Cibelli sees minimal expectations and a narrative capable of reversing as profits compound. The board has authorized a $200 million repurchase, while the low valuation could attract a pure financial sponsor, although Cibelli does not want an acquisition to cap the upside. His broader lesson from Uber and the valuation gap with Xometry is that “profit inflections drive narrative” and “stories can change.”

Deep dive

1. Remitly’s fundamentals improved while its market narrative deteriorated

Cibelli’s clean description remains “an online version of Western Union”: Remitly is 100% digital, accepts nearly every funding method except cash, and moves many small payments from developed to developing markets through bank accounts, wallets, or cash pickup.
Walker reopened the thesis with Cibelli’s memorable line from the prior episode—“Sometimes you just see it”—but Cibelli resisted turning the update into a pre-earnings call. Despite the weak share price and attractive opportunity, he was “not getting ahead of the quarter here” or advocating a large event-driven bet.
The operating scorecard is considerably better than the stock suggests. Walker noted that 2025 revenue guidance rose from approximately $1.57 billion to above $1.61 billion and adjusted EBITDA guidance from $190 million to more than $225 million; Cibelli added that revenue and gross profit grew about 35%, with EBITDA up well over 200%.
The remittance-tax discussion that weighed on the shares in February was resolved in Remitly’s favor: a 1% tax on cash remittances starts January 1. Cibelli separately acknowledged fears about ICE removing immigrants and deportations, but said the opportunity is so large that he does not think this should affect the company for a period of time.
GAAP profitability is the pivotal change: Q2 operating income moved from around negative $15 million to positive $15 million. Cibelli expects the prior losses to remain “in the rearview mirror,” making this an active profit inflection rather than one deferred to 2026 or 2027.

2. Wise is the wrong shorthand for Remitly’s competitive position

Cibelli openly “hates” the constant Wise comparison, though he acknowledged Wise’s fanatical shareholder base as a strategic asset. Wise handles send amounts that are multiples of Remitly’s, and its lower headline take rate partly reflects a much smaller mix of low-value transfers.
On the same corridor and transaction size, Cibelli believes pricing would look more comparable. Wise is not economically sending $225 from the US to Mexico for 30 or 40 basis points when a Remitly transaction generates only about $6-$7 of revenue before numerous other costs.
Remitly’s difficult-to-replicate capability is accepting the sender’s preferred non-cash payment and delivering rapidly through the receiver’s chosen modality—wallet, bank deposit, or physical cash. The companies may compete more directly someday and could even become merger partners, but Cibelli stressed that he was not predicting a transaction and sees long independent runways first.

3. Stablecoins do not eliminate the costly last mile

Walker stated the bear case in its strongest form: why pay Remitly 2%-4% to send money from the US to Mexico or the Philippines if USDC can move “basically free and instantaneous”? Cibelli first corrected the premise—Remitly’s weighted take rate is roughly 2.1%, already below the roughly 3.55% digital-remittance take rate in World Bank data, with cash channels higher still.
Cibelli’s core rebuttal is that a stablecoin delivers maximum savings only while it remains on-chain. Remittances occur more than monthly, according to frequency implied by Remitly’s S-1, which suggests recipients consume the funds quickly; food, utilities, healthcare, car, and phone bills generally require local spendable currency.
Once the recipient converts USDC into pesos or another fiat currency, off-ramp friction and expense reappear. Wholesale FX between major currency pairs may cost about ten basis points or less; the larger operating costs include KYC, AML, local rules, technology, marketing, operations, and delivering a reliable consumer service that no rational provider will offer for free.
Cibelli also rejected the analogy between stablecoins and unmanaged physical cash, describing them as closer to a tradable money-market fund. Stablecoins require reserves and ongoing management, may face asset-liability mismatches or “breaking the buck,” and depend on interest-rate economics: if rates return to zero, their economics still have to cover operating costs.

4. The rails framed as a threat could improve Remitly’s economics

Roughly 90%-95% of Remitly’s approximately 75-basis-point transaction cost comes from the customer’s chosen funding method and the recipient’s chosen payout method. Its net take after those costs is only around 1%-1.5%, so cheaper stablecoin funding could permit a substantial customer price reduction without destroying underlying unit economics.
Remitly currently creates an apparently instant service atop “a rickety old fiat banking system.” Debit cards do not settle instantly, so the company prefunds deposits globally, negotiates bank relationships, and manages settlement timing and fraud risk; stablecoins could eventually reduce those balances and create what Cibelli called a working-capital “windfall.”
Cibelli allowed a genuine consumer use case where the destination currency is rapidly depreciating: recipients could hold USDC and convert only what they need. Remitly’s Circle partnership addresses that possibility.
Walker invoked Visa and Mastercard’s claim that they can verify additional on- and off-ramps, and compared the incentive problem to Panera offering roughly $10 free with $50 of gift cards. Cibelli’s answer was that Walmart could offer a discount for using a proprietary stablecoin, but the discount needed to motivate consumers might exceed the savings.

5. Fraud and compliance are hidden barriers to entry

Walker highlighted transaction-loss provisions of 15.2 basis points of send volume in Q2, elevated by a sophisticated May fraud incident costing almost $3.8 million. Excluding that attack, losses would have been 13.1 basis points—small against a roughly 2.1% take rate despite nonstop testing by sophisticated criminal organizations.
Cibelli’s mechanism is more important than the loss figure: weak fraud systems force a provider to delay more legitimate transfers, degrading the experience. Better detection lets Remitly approve and deliver more transactions quickly, which improves retention and frequency, raises lifetime value, and supports greater customer-acquisition spending.
Walker tested whether looser KYC and AML enforcement could erode that moat. Cibelli did not share the premise for money-transfer organizations; he instead sees pressure to stop undocumented workers from using regulated rails and to tax certain transfers, while regulators generally catch up with crypto-related developments with a delay.
Western Union has had roughly two decades of internet availability to build a comparable digital experience, yet Cibelli expects Remitly to exceed its send volume within a couple of years. Remitly’s direct bank connections, payout coverage, fraud capability, and knowledge of the relevant rules make the platform “definitely valuable” and difficult to reproduce.

6. Market saturation is the real failure case, while margins drive the upside

Asked what would make the thesis fail over four years, Cibelli did not answer stablecoins. His explicit risk is that Remitly has already penetrated more of its addressable market than he believes, causing growth to stall and the company to become roughly a GDP grower.
His valuation work already assumes considerable deceleration: approximately 20%-21% growth in 2026, declining to 13.5% through 2030. With “pretty unspectacular growth” but meaningful margin expansion, he calculates a 2030 terminal value multiple below four times at the current valuation.
The model is more sensitive to margin than growth. CEO Matt Oppenheimer has said Remitly could eventually exceed Western Union’s roughly 18.5%-19% GAAP operating margin; at 19% in 2030, Cibelli estimates around $500 million of GAAP after-tax, after-SBC net income.
Even if growth stalls, Cibelli argues that strong incremental margins and delivery on the profit inflection would still make it a very good investment. In his framing, Remitly could be a high-single-digit grower with low-double-digit profit growth by 2030 while generating substantially more cash.
The difficult comparable set obscures that potential: MoneyGram is private, Wise is materially different, and Western Union carries an approximately 11% dividend yield after a decade in which remittance equities mostly lost investors money. Cibelli is underwriting the possibility that Remitly becomes the digital “category killer”—analogous within its niche to Booking, Flutter, or Uber—not another melting legacy operator.

7. Remitly One and Business are optionality rather than thesis pillars

The market received Remitly’s new products poorly, which surprised Cibelli because they are inexpensive experiments from an entrepreneurial, founder-led team. He considers them “a free call on them doing something smart,” not evidence that the core remittance market is slowing or that the TAM is exhausted.
Walker’s sharpest objection concerned Remitly One: why would someone sufficiently cash-constrained to need a $250 transfer today and repay it three months later also pay approximately $10 per month for membership? Cibelli conceded that “send now, pay later” may need different pricing or benefits, but said management has no ambition to accumulate large loans and become a bank.
Another proposed benefit—roughly $5 monthly cash back for sending through ACH, a lower-cost funding method—made more strategic sense to Walker. It could establish a monthly habit, shift customers toward cheaper funding, improve retention, lower acquisition costs, and effectively finance the reward through better transaction economics.
Walker said Remitly describes Business as expanding its TAM from roughly $2 trillion to $22 trillion, but Cibelli interprets the initial target narrowly. The exemplar is a US accountant paying four or five workers in the Philippines: “the smallest of the small” businesses, not a Trojan horse for attacking Wise or established enterprise-payment providers.

8. Capital allocation reveals how little the valuation currently assumes

Cibelli put the stock near 8.5 times next year’s EBITDA while Remitly is already solidly GAAP profitable, leaving little embedded value for either new product. He also believes the valuation is low enough that a pure financial sponsor might recognize the future cash generation, although he would dislike having the upside capped by a sale.
The board’s newly authorized $200 million share-repurchase program signals its view of value. Cibelli nevertheless raised insider selling as a “tiny red flag” for a disregarded small- or mid-cap growth company, while Walker pushed back that Oppenheimer’s roughly $500,000 of quarterly sales appeared modest beside his much larger ownership.
Cibelli’s nuance was that this is a nit, not evidence of extraction: Oppenheimer’s salary is less than roughly $300,000, he has taken no new grants in three years, owns about 2%-3% of the company, and looks like “a person on a mission.” His hypothetical compensation-committee trade would be a higher salary in exchange for ending share sales.
Narrative explains the remaining valuation gap. Compared with Xometry, Remitly is about 25% larger by market capitalization, has roughly 2.5 times the revenue, eight times next year’s estimated EBITDA, and is projected to grow faster next year, yet Xometry enjoys AI and reshoring enthusiasm. Cibelli owns both, has hedged some Xometry exposure, and sees the contrast as proof that “stories can change.”

Reid Hoffman on AI, Consciousness, and the Future of Labor Macro Conversations 93: China’s 15th Five-Year Plan Through Porter