It’s a question of defensibility if some regulator came to you and asked why you allowed certain individuals through because a black box told you without any additional context.
And I don’t think anyone builds their own KYC from ground up - it’s more whether you have context for a decision with your own vendor implementation vs a black box yes or no.
Isn’t it Stripe’s partner bank that is ultimately underwriting all the KYC on a platform like this? I assume they’ve signed off on how Stripe has implemented it so as to be sufficiently defensible
Ding ding. Notice to open the Treasury account, you need to specify the bank. Stripe is not owning the accounts, the bank is, so KYC is pushed to them.
EDIT: For those that think that just opening the accounts as Stripe would be a workaround, the answer to that is "beneficial ownership" and is part of KYC.
Which in turn means you benefit from everyone else who's already been stung. KYC solutions' risk:reward ratios start high, but asymptotically approach 0 as the provider learns from its customers' problems. If you're signing up for a well-established one, you're able to free-ride on all the learning that's already been done.
You can have your cake and eat it, too:
- Start with a third-party KYC solution
- Slowly develop your own and compare the results with the one from the provider
- When your own solution provides something similar to the other one, you can abort the subscription