Liminal

Financial crime compliance is the set of controls a business runs to detect and prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions violations, and other regulated categories of illicit finance. Historically, it has been a distinct function: separate team, budget, vendors, and reporting line. That distinction is now dissolving, and the shift is a bigger deal for buyers than it sounds.

Sales teams running outreach campaigns in identity, fraud, financial crime, and security sell to different buyers with different expectations. A compliance-focused CISO responds to a different language than a growth-oriented CRO. Until now, outreach messages followed a single composition style across every campaign and every audience. Reps either accepted the default or rewrote manually, getting inconsistent outputs and investing time on editing instead of selling.

The conversation around deepfakes often focuses on the latest breakthrough. A new generative AI model is released, synthetic media becomes more convincing, and the headlines ask whether defenders can keep up. That question gets at the right concern, but I think it misses the bigger issue. The challenge isn’t any single AI model or attack technique. It’s building security systems and operating models that can keep pace as the threat landscape continuously changes. Deepfakes are evolving.

For years, perpetual KYC lived in the same category as most compliance modernization ideas: widely endorsed, rarely funded. That era is over. In the Liminal Index for KYC in Banking 2026, 98.8% of banks said perpetual KYC is live, in rollout, or planned within the next 12 months. Among those furthest along, most completed the shift in under 6 months. When adoption approaches 99%, the interesting question shifts from if to how, and the how is where most programs are struggling.

Evaluating one adjacent market segment properly takes an analyst about 3 days. Use cases, buyer priorities, applicable regulation, who already serves it, how saturated the coverage is. Multiply that across every segment worth a look, and the reason most teams assess 2 or 3 a year becomes obvious. So the shortlist gets drawn before the analysis starts. Someone proposes 3 segments in a planning meeting, those 3 get researched, and one of them wins.

Liminal announced today the Liminal MCP: a single authenticated endpoint that connects any MCP-compatible AI system to the platform’s verified, proprietary intelligence across Identity, Fraud, and Cybersecurity. Strategy, product, and revenue teams can now query structured market intelligence from Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or a custom agent, with source attribution on every result.

Liminal, the intelligence platform for companies building and selling identity, fraud, financial crime, and security products into complex, regulated markets, today announced two additions to its executive leadership team: Rivka Little as Chief Operating Officer and Randy Guard as Chief Marketing Officer. The appointments expand Liminal’s leadership bench as the company scales its business and builds on momentum in a fast-growing category.

Digital identity verification is the practice of confirming someone is who they claim to be, using digital evidence rather than a physical document check at a counter. For most of its history, that meant a photo of a driver’s license and a selfie. It is now starting to mean something different: accepting a government-issued digital ID that the person already holds in a wallet on their phone, and reading it directly. I am the CEO and co-founder of Trinsic.

Strategy, product, and revenue teams in Identity, Fraud, and Cybersecurity are building agents. The problem is what those agents read. The open web produces confident answers that are often wrong. The relationships that matter in the market are not covered by web scraping. Which vendor actually covers which capability, what a buyer in a given segment needs, which regulation applies, who acquired whom. These deep insights are unavailable in the public domain. A general model will invent them.

Comparing two vendors in Identity, Fraud, or Cybersecurity is done in a spreadsheet today. The inputs are vendor marketing sites, analyst PDFs of varying age, and whatever the team already believed. Every vendor claims every capability, so a capability checklist built from public material converges on “everyone does everything”, which tells a buyer nothing and tells a strategy team less. Company Compare replaces that process.