由原文自动翻译 · 阅读原文 (English)
一直在思考针对不符合“传统公司”模式的企业进行KYB的挑战。我们看到越来越多的客户以分布式团队、跨司法管辖区的多个法律实体，甚至像DAO这样拥有真实世界资产或接口的高度流动性结构运营。标准的文档要求往往不太适用，试图确定最终受益所有人（UBO）可能会变成一个真正的迷宫。
其他人是否也遇到了类似的难题？在保持强大的AML/CFT合规性的同时，哪些策略或工具在入职这些更复杂或非传统的商业模式方面被证明是有效的？特别感兴趣的是，公司如何管理那些例如在一个国家注册，但运营中心和关键决策者分布在其他几个国家的实体的风险状况。感觉监管框架正在追赶，找到一致的最佳实践很困难。
This is so true! I've been running into similar issues trying to onboard some smaller, more agile tech companies. Do you find that having a more flexible, perhaps 'tiered' approach to documentation helps, or does it just muddy the waters even more for compliance?
It's an interesting problem, but I'm not sure how many of those 'fluid structures' you're describing are actually generating enough consistent, verifiable revenue to warrant full KYB in the traditional sense anyway. Most just seem like glorified speculative projects.
Traderforum · 简体中文