I disagree that bot developers should be placed in a separate category from normal users, and I disagree that 100 servers is a meaningful place to draw the line that Discord is drawing.

The linked comment is incorrect to say that Discord only requires verification for specific permissions, Discord requires verification for bots who are in more than 100 servers regardless of what permissions they use. I think it's fairly obvious that verification for Discord bots is going to gradually expand and encompass more of the service, but maybe I'm just cynical from watching other companies do the same thing with their identity verification schemes.

More importantly, I disagree that identity verification is the best way for Discord to combat abuse. I think that Discord's moderation tools and server settings are lackluster. At best, I think identity verification is a an easy way for them to avoid improving those tools, at the cost of user privacy.

I don't think your comment changes anything about what I'm saying in regards to Discord, but regardless, I also want to point out that it's not just Discord we're talking about: we are seeing a trend towards more services online requiring real-world identities. So we can fight over whether Discord in specific should be grouped in with that trend (I think it should be), but even if you disagree on that point, it still seems pretty clear to me how Stripe's service is going to be used in the future. Do you feel identity verification is also a non-issue for services like Clubhouse and Facebook?

I think the fact that Stripe is advertising both Discord and Clubhouse as early partners says a lot about the types of services they think are going to be attracted to their product.

I think you're being too dogmatic about this. For me it's a perfectly valid use case for identity verification. It prevents a big problem and only affects an extremely tiny subset of users.