Interview Questions & Synthesized Insights
1. What is your current experience with completing KYC for banks or financial services?
Summary of responses:
Most users find the process repetitive and time-consuming - especially when opening multiple accounts (bank, insurance, investment).
Pain points include re-uploading documents, physical verification delays, and unclear communication from service providers.
Institutional participants echoed that manual verification and repeated validation across systems create high operational costs and data silos.
Analysis:
Current KYC is fragmented and redundant. There’s strong demand for one-time verification that can be securely reused across financial platforms.
2. What parts of the KYC process feel most frustrating or time-consuming?
Summary of responses:
Users cited delays in approval, frequent resubmissions, and confusion around document formats.
Some faced lockouts or account freezes during periodic re-KYC due to outdated information.
Institutions mentioned fraud detection checks and inter-institutional data sharing as bottlenecks.
Analysis:
A key design opportunity is to simplify and standardize KYC submission and automate renewal triggers. Users want transparency and real-time status tracking.
3. How comfortable are you sharing your personal identity documents with different institutions?
Summary of responses:
Only 25% of users said they were fully comfortable.
The rest expressed privacy concerns — particularly about “who can see” their Aadhaar or PAN.
Users fear data misuse and breaches; most want to control and track where their data goes.
Institutions emphasised that user trust is essential but often undermined by phishing and fake KYC links.
Analysis:
Design must prioritize data transparency and auditability — users need to see who accessed their KYC, when, and for what purpose. Consent dashboards will be key to building trust.
4. How do you currently keep track of where your personal data has been shared?
Summary of responses:
Nearly all users said they have no clear visibility or method to track data sharing.
Some rely on email confirmations but find them inconsistent.
Institutions acknowledged there’s no unified audit mechanism.
Analysis:
A centralized, user-facing audit log - showing consent history and access trails — would directly address a major user pain point and strengthen compliance.
5. How important is it for you to control or limit who can access your KYC data?
Summary of responses:
100% of users rated this as “very important.”
Many wanted the ability to grant, pause, or revoke access instantly.
Institutions agreed that consent-driven sharing aligns with new data privacy frameworks (like DPDP Act).
Analysis:
User control is non-negotiable. The solution must support granular permissions, time-bound consent, and revocation capabilities.
6. What would make you feel more confident in a digital KYC process?
Summary of responses:
Visible signs of security (digital signatures, verified issuers, blockchain-backed validation).
Simpler interfaces that explain “why” data is needed.
Integration with trusted government systems like Aadhaar and DigiLocker.
Analysis:
Confidence grows when users see trust indicators and understand the data flow. Visual cues (lock icons, verified stamps, issuer details) and plain-language explanations can boost comfort.
7. Would you find it useful to reuse your verified KYC across multiple services? Why or why not?
Summary of responses:
Over 90% said yes — they want a “single KYC for everything.”
They believe it will save time, reduce effort, and avoid document fatigue.
A few users raised concerns about data leaks if one system gets compromised.
Analysis:
High interest in reusability, but design must include token isolation - i.e., tokens unique per institution but derived from the same verified source - ensuring both efficiency and safety.
8. What concerns would you have about storing or sharing your KYC digitally using tokens?
Summary of responses:
Main concerns: data hacking, token misuse, and technical complexity.
Some users said they don’t fully understand “digital tokens” or “blockchain,” and that this could affect adoption.
Analysis:
Educational UX and transparent onboarding flows are crucial. Use simple metaphors (“your digital KYC passport”) instead of technical jargon.
9. How would you expect to update or revoke your KYC information if your details change?
Summary of responses:
Analysis:
Design should support real-time sync and update propagation across institutions via APIs, ensuring both compliance and convenience.
10. How would you want to give permission for others (like family, guardians, or nominees) to access your KYC when needed?
Summary of responses:
Many users said this feature would be valuable, especially for elderly family members or emergency cases.
They emphasized clear rules, expiry limits, and revocation control.
Analysis:
Design opportunity: introduce secure delegation workflows - allowing limited, auditable access to nominees with two-step verification.
Institutional Insights Summary
Institutions desire interoperability via open APIs.
They support blockchain-based trust frameworks but emphasize regulatory clarity and cost efficiency.
Compliance heads noted that real-time revocation and auditability could reduce fraud significantly.
