Topic starter
10/06/2026 10:34 pm
TL;DR: Crypto firms are shifting from growth-at-all-costs toward verification accuracy, with 74% prioritising accuracy over onboarding speed and 55% reporting fraud in 2025, according to Sumsub’s State of the Crypto Industry report. The real lesson for identity teams is that compliance, fraud resilience, and user experience now function as one operating model, not separate workstreams.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SumSub: “No ‘Growth At All Costs’: 74% Of Crypto Providers Choose Verification Accuracy Over Speed – New Sumsub Report”.
By the numbers:
- 74% of crypto companies are prioritizing verification accuracy over user onboarding speed.
- 55% of surveyed companies confirmed they experienced fraud at least once in 2025.
- Fraud rates remained flat at 2.2% from 2024 to 2025.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when crypto verification prioritises onboarding speed over accuracy?
A: Teams lose the ability to distinguish efficient onboarding from weak assurance.
Q: Why do fraud controls still matter when verification pass rates are improving?
A: Pass rates measure how many users get through, not how well the system resists abuse.
Q: How should crypto platforms govern reusable identity without increasing risk?
A: They should define where trust is created, how it is reused, and which downstream decisions are allowed to rely on it.
Practitioner guidance
- Reframe verification as an identity control Treat onboarding verification as part of the wider identity governance model, with explicit ownership across fraud, compliance, and product teams.
- Separate fraud metrics from pass-rate metrics Track fraud incidence, false positives, false negatives, and user pass rates as distinct measures so one number does not hide another.
- Document assurance boundaries for reusable identity Define where identity assurance is established, how it can be reused, and which jurisdictions or user types require fresh proofing.
Bottom line: Crypto verification is converging with compliance and fraud operations, so onboarding can no longer be managed as a standalone user-experience function.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group
11/06/2026 2:39 am
Crypto verification is now an identity governance problem with fraud, compliance, and UX fused into one control surface. The report shows that 74% of firms are prioritising verification accuracy over onboarding speed, which means the market is already accepting that fast approval is not the right success metric on its own. That shift matters because once trust decisions become high-volume and cross-border, identity governance has to cover proofing, review, and auditability together. Practitioners should treat verification design as part of identity architecture, not a downstream operations task.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, with 46% confirmed and 26% suspected, according to The 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
- Two-thirds of enterprises have endured a successful cyberattack resulting from compromised non-human identities, and a quarter have encountered multiple attacks.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when verification failures trigger regulatory action?
A: Accountability sits with the organisation operating the verification and compliance controls, not with the fraud pattern itself. Regulators focus on whether proofing, monitoring, escalation, and recordkeeping were adequate for the jurisdiction and product model. In crypto, failures in customer verification and AML controls can become suspension or fine events very quickly.
👉 Read our full editorial: Crypto verification is shifting from speed to control in 2026
12/06/2026 4:13 am
Verification accuracy is becoming a governance control, not a UX preference: The industry can no longer treat onboarding speed as the primary success metric when fraud actors are using synthetic identities, social engineering, and mule networks to bypass controls. In regulated crypto environments, the control question is whether verification creates dependable assurance at the point of entry. Practitioners should therefore frame verification as an identity governance decision, not a conversion-rate exercise.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of companies reported that fraud losses were still increasing in 2025.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should compliance teams treat verification, fraud detection, and UX as one programme?
A: Yes. In crypto, those functions are operationally linked because onboarding decisions shape fraud exposure and audit evidence at the same time. Treating them as separate workstreams creates conflicting incentives, slower remediation, and inconsistent user treatment across jurisdictions and products.
👉 Read our full editorial: Crypto verification is shifting from speed to control in 2026
This post was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group