Crypto-related project using a vendor for their KYC/AML management is indeed beneficial. There might be too much overhead if one company handles and develop a lot of sensitive materials all at once and on its own premises. I rather think it is way safer in the security aspect noting the main company does not control too much sensitive data and let the KYC vendor do its job.
It does not fully prevent and guarantee there won't be any breach but it is way more manageable if the critical aspect of the business is managed by the vendor who specializes in the subject. As we might have noticed, Roobet does also use Veriff for verification.
@vv181, This is my own impression but aysg76 seems not to understand the concept of crypto-related companies having a vendor who specializes in KYC/AML activities to handle to KYC activities of their customer because the main purpose was to provide security of the use data not to cause vulnerability because the duties will be broad for the crypto company alone to handle. Besides, we're talking about KYC/AML vendors that are licensed by the government.
Those type of companies are there basically for just security reasons and not because of hard work. Collecting KYC and keeping them secure is not that much of extra work and any casino could do that, just put it on some offline server where nobody can hack, and you will be fine, there is absolutely no trouble at all.
It is done because of governmental pressure, if you use KYC company supported by the government, then you could legally be a casino without a trouble and would be able to say "we worked with the government on this" and get away with it, plus you could tell the gamblers "we do not hold any of your information" which is good for marketing.