KYC proof as NFT vs KYC attestation

Note that this project produces proof of KYC using STRIPE.

@victor.zhang such an KYC data is not transferrable hence it's a bit overkill to make NFT out of KYC; where attestation is created off-chain and only used as a part of transactions that uses such attestation. We can do it with attestation from

In this case, saving money is the main reason you might opt for attestation rather than NFT, since the document ID is redacted. (If it is not, there are use-cases where attestation can't be replaced by NFT for the cost reason alone)

Usecase: anti-Sybil attack

The project aimed to solve KYC problem but I'm not sure how it is solved (so I asked on their github. Note that if we do it from, by the typical logic we do it, Sybil attack is addressed with method 𝑏 (in that github question).

Usecase: FIFA ticket

Imagine FIFA ticket is issued as NFT and the condition is that you have done KYC. If document data is redacted, like this project did, then when the user enters the FIFA event venue, he will need to produce the blockchain proof, as well as the government ID document, to show that it is the one KYC-ed on the website he used to purchase FIFA ticket. The FIFA venue can look up its internal record to see that the document ID matches, i.e. the user didn't just give away the private key to a terrorist.

However if the same person boards the airplane, the airport will have no knowledge if his document ID matches the ticket, since all they know is that the ticket is on a KYC-ed address with document ID information redacted.

Conclusion: (if we don't mind gas fee) is NFT sufficient or do we need an attestation

In short: are you happy to only know that the user is KYC-ed by a 3rd party (anti-sybil use-case), or do you need the linkage to the document ID (FIFA ticket use-case)