확장성을 위한 KYC 자동화 vs. 예외 사례

This is a tough one. The cost of a false positive can be huge, but so can the cost of manually reviewing every borderline case. Finding that balance is key.

This is a great point. For smaller fintechs, I wonder if a tiered approach to KYC, perhaps outsourcing the most complex edge cases to specialized providers, makes sense rather than building out a full in-house team from day one.

This is such a crucial point. For smaller fintechs, the cost of a high rate of manual reviews for edge cases can really eat into margins, but you also can't afford to get it wrong. Finding that balance without compromising security or user experience is key.

This is such a crucial point. For smaller fintechs, I wonder if the initial investment in building out a robust human review team for those edge cases is actually more cost-effective than trying to over-engineer an AI for every possible anomaly from day one. There's a balance for sure.

It's a tricky balance. I've seen smaller fintechs get bogged down by the sheer volume of manual reviews, but too much automation can also lead to regulatory headaches down the line if the edge cases are mishandled. Have you considered a tiered approach where some edge cases are routed to a more senior, specialized human review team?