3 ms·
Hey, as someone who’s had to implement this in the past: no. If anything, outsourcing your KYC makes a lot of sense for most companies. You reduce risk as vend
by mpeg 4y ago
Hey, as someone who’s had to implement this in the past: no.
If anything, outsourcing your KYC makes a lot of sense for most companies. You reduce risk as vendors like onfido have spent literally hundreds of millions building their platform (and would already use a number of public and private data sources to prevent fraud)
If you’re building a bank, it might make sense to in-house it, otherwise it’s just exposing yourself to increased fraud rates and potential data breaches.
- lmeyerov 4y agoVery much this. Same reason it's nice to use Stripe so you're not the one holding your customer's credit cards. Holding anyone's passport photo sounds horrible.
- alonp99 4y agoSolid points. from what we’ve seen it defers between different companies. Each company has its own preferences, some find it less optimal to send IDs to a 3rd party, and some don’t want to host it themself, and this is why we built it to be entirely modular. It means you can either use a vendor in the backend (for fraud, file storage, AML, or anything else) or do stuff on your own, we want to make sure the underlying infrastructure won't break when you mix and match those. we do it by standardizing the data and how all modules talk with each other. From what we’ve seen it really depends on what service the company is giving, who are the customers, and sometimes the size of the company.