AFAIK they are doing KYC to oblige their status as a German nonproffit, and my guess is to link those who received payement to an ID, so in case the funds are later disputed, legal action can take place against those who wrongly claimed the funds--pretty obvious stuff. As for th rest, you seem a bit bitter about it and my guess is that's skewed your narative a lot.
How can you establish who is genuine owner of a seed if there are two claimants?
If both claimants submit I.D where do you go from there. I.D was not required during the ICO process or any time since, the only time they have demanded I.D was after the IOTA grab without any consent.
I am not bitter at all, I already dumped all my IOTA mainly due to the dev teams unprofessional attitude that wont cut it in the future.
Again, "the grab without consent" was to protect people's funds--odd that you think that's a bad thing, but whatever.
If two people are claiming the same funds, then I'm sure one party would be more interested in meeting the authorities than the other (those authorities would have access to bank data and could search records to correlate the amount of the claim with the bank's ledger)--again, pretty obvious stuff.