The CFTC's case is about Americans accessing unregistered futures and swaps, and with this case they have created no latitude for any company to exclude Americans so that they would never establish jurisdiction.
The point is that this AML/KYC "debate" is a complete red herring. It is inherently a component eventually, but not really. Even if they did force AML/KYC before any kind of trading, then it's still Americans trading unregistered futures and swaps. So you see, unless the CFTC says "we're coming after you because of the lax AML/KYC" then its not about AML/KYC. Could they force AML/KYC and then say "ah you're American you can't trade", sure. Could an American use a fake ID and the CFTC uses that to establish jurisdiction, sure.
So the productive thing here would be for the CFTC to be more collaborative and say exactly what the exact threshold a non-US organization can have to be in a safe-harbor with the CFTC.