3 ms·
> "doesn't have any tighter KYC restrictions" Yes that's the problem. > "Requiring bank-scale KYC..." Nobody said that. The KYC part is an analogy to the fin
by manigandham 4y ago
> "doesn't have any tighter KYC restrictions"
Yes that's the problem.
> "Requiring bank-scale KYC..."
Nobody said that. The KYC part is an analogy to the financial industry to use procedures to screen out bad actors. But it doesn't need the same requirements.
> " they don't have infrastructure to background-vet 4 million customers"
KYC is not difficult. Again, banks and finance companies which are far smaller than Google do this all the time, for all of their customers and anyone involved in transactions. This is 100s of millions of clients.
> "Perhaps this is the right approach."
This approach is far more nuanced than the binary outcome you're interpreting. There are ad and account approvals already. There are different scales requiring different support and sales already. Having more intensive checks as the spending scales is a very simple and effective strategy that can be applied today.
The company doesn't care about the number of customers, it cares about the revenue against potential risk (just like every other every business), and currently the risk is acceptable for these ads and advertisers to continue.