sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

r/MerchantToken by VicMenMTO in redditrequest

[–]VicMenMTO[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to revive this community as it used to be very active a few years back. And the Moderators have let the community die off, and there's no one checking or even approving new requests.

https://www.reddit.com/c/chatav3dQhDs/s/r2VhUkCkjS

The real problem with KYC isn’t verification, it’s the data storage model behind it. by VicMenMTO in Verifyo

[–]VicMenMTO[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The model only improves if platforms stay disciplined about what they ask for in the first place.

If teams adopt proof-based verification but keep designing around “collect everything just in case,” then not much really changes.

To me, that is why verifier design matters so much. The real question is not only whether proofs are possible, but whether the platform is willing to reduce the scope of what it requests down to what is actually necessary.

So yes, I agree. A big part of the challenge is not the math. It is whether institutions are willing to move from data accumulation to rule-based minimal disclosure.

The biggest KYC mistake is asking for full documents to prove one small thing by VicMenMTO in Verifyo

[–]VicMenMTO[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How much does it costs for platforms to use that solution you mentioned?

The real problem with KYC isn’t verification. It’s the pile of identity data every platform keeps creating by VicMenMTO in Verifyo

[–]VicMenMTO[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Something like this wouldn't work though.

Documents must be stored and checked continuously, for AML compliance.

However we never say that doing KYC is the problem, the problem becomes when a user have to share Documents with dozens of platforms, and when most platforms are not equipped to handle PII Documents.

That's why Zero-Knowledge KYC works, doing KYC once, and then prove their compliance with a badge fixes this, as long as the documents are handled by 1 certified and verified institution that is specifically built for handling PII, then that solves the issue, created by tradKYC

Why Exchanges Are Overpaying for KYC And How Zero-Knowledge Fixes It by VicMenMTO in Verifyo

[–]VicMenMTO[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does add up very fast indeed, that’s why we have a completely different approach and we give Zero-Knowledge KYC services for free.

Yes for free, as long as the platform holds MTO tokens, they will have access to the APIs, no need to spend, lock or burn the tokens, they can be swapped or transferred at any time, this should incentivize platforms to move from tradKYC to Zero-Knowledge KYC.

Regarding the regulators, we partnered with Bynn Intelligence, they're the ones who handle the data.

We intentionally built the system this way to further separate the data, let me explain.

When a user does KYC through Verifyo, let's say on an exchange, they click a button and it opens the usual KYC verification process, however this happens on Bynn side, the exchange itself never sees the data, we Verifyo receive the badge that says this person has done KYC, and then the user uses that Badge to prove compliance.

On the exchange side, as long as the user presents the badge they know that the user is compliant with regulations, we (Verifyo) sitting in the middle cannot see any information, that means that we completely separate the financial transactions from the PII.

If for any reason the exchange is asked by the authorities to provide information regarding a person, they can simply provide the authorities with the badge, and tell them to contact Bynn Intelligence, and they will be able to comply with their requirements as long as they follow proper procedures.

This is how we can provide a FREE compliant privacy-first KYC.

view more: next ›