English | Chinese Original

English translation of the Chinese original. This version is generated for international readers and may be refined over time.

Date: 2026-04-16

Anthropic's KYC is not a compliance move, it's a strategic layout

Anthropic started asking users for authentication. The official term is "identifying the identity of the user and the purpose of compliance", which sounds standard and secure. But I'm telling you, don't be fooled by this official language--** This is not a simple compliance exercise at all, but the beginning of a user-level war.**

Consider that Anthropic emphasizes that "identification data will not be used in model training and will not be shared with third parties". What does that mean in turn? They say, 'I do not want your data, and I take only your identity.' In other words, they don't want your data, you do.

Why people? Because AI's capability is breaking the border. Claude Mythos was able to identify and take advantage of the system's loopholes, which had already shocked the financial regulators (US, E, G). Goldman Sachs uses Claude to process transaction accounting and the KYC process to enrich 31, 000 engineers with AI code assistants -** AI is no longer just chat toys, it is becoming part of the financial infrastructure.**

Infrastructure requires real name. The logic is simple: does ATM need a real name? Not required because of its limited capacity. But if AI is able to execute end-to-end payments on its own (which has just been done by the Bank of Santander) and handles transaction accounting and customer access, then its users must be tracked and held accountable.

So, Anthony's KYC is essentially preparing for the attribution of responsibility after the upgrade of capacity.

Three true purposes of identification

One: compliance shield

Regional constraints are not new. China's mainland user subscription to Claude Pro was sealed long before the implementation of the KYC - the VPN+ virtual card set should have been phased out as soon as the policy of "unsupported areas" was put in place. Now that we're doing this, it's just making it more formal and difficult.

In other words:** the cover is not the result of KYC, but the reason for KYC**. They need a mechanism to enforce regional restrictions and not just to declare "no support for a region".

Two: Risk segregation

Claude Mythos' capabilities have triggered sensitive nerves of financial regulation. The regulators are not concerned about whether Anthropic will cause harm, but** whether these capabilities, once in the market, will produce uncontrolled thorium**.

KYC equals a filter: the user who authenticates the pass means, "I know who you are and you can't run away." This is easier for regulators to accept than simply limiting modelling capacity.

#3: Capability hierarchy prefix

That's the point. OpenAI launched GPT-54-Cyber with a TAC (Trusted Access for Cyber) mechanism, the core logic being:** different levels of certification correspond to different model capabilities**. High-level users can access the " less restrictive " version.

Anthropic is probably on the same road. Today you can verify your identity, and tomorrow you can open up different capabilities according to the level of certification. ** Identification is not the end point, but the capacity classification is the end point.**

Anthropic and OpenAI's two different routes

The recent differences between the two companies' strategies in the AI area are interesting.

Anthropic practice** "Restricted capacity"** - Closely restricted to about 40 organizations (Amazon, Apple, Microsoft) within the Glasswing scheme, close to closed testing.

OpenAI's idea is ** "Managing Users"** - deciding by KYC who can access a higher level of ability, but generally prefers to expand access. OpenAI even states in official articles that they do not believe that "it is practicable or appropriate for a minority to concentrate on who is entitled to protect themselves".

Underlying this disagreement is a confrontation between two security doctrines:

• Anthropic: Too dangerous, too dangerous, too proliferation-restricted, only to credible entities.
• OpenAI: Capability cannot be eliminated, management uses, access to tools for more defenders.

Interestingly, Anthropic is being criticized as "a monopoly of critical infrastructure defence resources by the technology giant". Your quality-restrictive model capabilities sound safe, but if only big companies have access to them, what about small security companies, independent researchers?

There is no standard answer to this debate, but there is a certain trend:** AI Qualification is moving from "model capacity competition" to "governance framework competition"**.

Rebut a possible challenge

Some would say, "KYC is the collection of user data, which eventually becomes a data monopoly."

This concern is justified, but ** is confusing.** Anthropic makes it clear that identity data are held by Persona, not for training, not for marketing sharing. This is not a commitment. It is a segregation at the technical architecture level.

The real risk is not what Anthropic collects, but that ** identification becomes the industry standard.** When all AI providers start demanding a real name, the question is not what kind of entry threshold the entire industry would be for a company to be untrustworthy.

Write at the end

Anthropic KYC is not the end, but the beginning.

AI is moving from an "open laboratory" to a "regulated infrastructure", a trend that will not be altered by which company labels "accountability". The attention of regulators, the breakthrough in modelling capacity, and the expansion of user sizes - these three forces will collectively drive the arrival of AI.

For us developers,** the most important preparation is not at the technical level, but at the psychological level**: accept an AI ecology that is no longer anonymous and learn to find its place under the new rules.

Of course, if you're still tying Claude Pro with a virtual card now, I suggest you: ** Don't mess with it, it's always coming.**

---

** Do you support AI by name? Welcome to the comment section.**

Reference source

1. Anthropic is about to launch an identification program - Frontier News - Linux Do - Search Engine
2. Claude, we're going to kill them all. - Search Engine
3. Anthropic's new model, Claude Mythos, raises financial concerns, U. S. and British surveillance... - Search Engine [11. 3 Data privacy and compliance: Data Privacy and Company|Claude Technical Guide]https://yeasy.gitbook.io/claude_guide/di-si-bu-fen-shi-zhan-pian/11_safety/11.3_privacy) - Search Engine
4. AI security upgrade: OpenAI push GPT-54-Cyber, release strategy and... - Search Engine
5. Claude Pro Subscription Cover: Reasons, Circumventions and Comprehensive Analysis of Complaints - Complaints-Angryecho - Search Engine
6. Foreign Finance AI Application Dynamic Brief 3. 16 - China Data Group - Search Engine