3 ms·
So much this. I would have zero interest in building out kyc vs having stripe do it for me
by _alex_ 6y ago
So much this. I would have zero interest in building out kyc vs having stripe do it for me
- tempsy 6y agoIt’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.
- conductr 6y agoIsn’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
- jdmichal 6y agoDing 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.
- futhey 6y agoAh, this is illuminating. So the built an API to interface developers with existing bank infrastructure (likely to support their own operations). They're not the treasury, they're the link that doesn't require me to be a huge entity with bargaining power to convince a bank to partner with me.
- evrydayhustling 6y agoTIL that Stripe's Treasury service is a marketplace connecting bank treasury services to marketplace services that require a treasury.