The velocity transformation you presented,
$$\mathbf{V}'=\exp{(iK_{z}\tanh^{-1}\beta)}\,\mathbf{V}\,\exp{(-iK_{z}\tanh^{-1}\beta)}\tag1$$
is equivalent to the usual Lorentz transformation of velocity, which for a boost by $\beta\hat z$ is
$${V_x}'=\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}\,V_x}{1-\beta V_z}\tag{2a}$$
$${V_y}'=\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}\,V_y}{1-\beta V_z}\tag{2b}$$
$${V_z}'=\frac{V_z-\beta}{1-\beta V_z}\tag{2c},$$
but it's a messy calculation. I believe that the equivalence can only be shown term-by-term in an expansion in powers of $\beta$.
In comments, you explained that (1) is to be interpreted in terms of various operators which are possibly non-commuting, namely the relativistic velocity operator
$$\mathbf{V}\equiv\frac{\mathbf{P}}{H},\tag{3a}$$
the Lorentz boost generator
$$\mathbf{K}\equiv\frac12(H\mathbf{X}+\mathbf{X}H),\tag{3b}$$
and the relativistic energy operator
$$H\equiv(\mathbf{P}^2+m^2)^{1/2}.\tag{3c}$$
Here $\mathbf X$ is the position operator and $\mathbf P$ the relativistic momentum operator with the canonical commutation relations
$$[X_j,P_k]=i\,\delta_{jk}.\tag4$$
To show the equivalence of (1) and (2), use the identity
$$e^ABe^{-A}=B+[A,B]+\frac{1}{2!}[A,[A,B]]+\frac{1}{3!}[A,[A,[A,B]]]+\dots\tag5$$
which follows from the Taylor series for the function $f(t)=e^{tA}Be^{-tA}$. Equation (1) becomes
$$\begin{align}{V_i}'&=V_i+(i\tanh^{-1}\beta)[K_z,V_i]\\&+\frac{(i\tanh^{-1}\beta)^2}{2!}[K_z,[K_z,V_i]]\\&+\frac{(i\tanh^{-1}\beta)^3}{3!}[K_z,[K_z,[K_z,V_i]]]+\dots\,.\end{align}\tag6$$
So the next step is to calculate the commutator $[K_z,V_i]$ and further nestings. We have
$$[K_z,V_i]=\left[\frac12(Hz+zH),V_i\right]=\frac12\left(H[z,V_i]+[z,V_i]H\right)=i(\delta_{iz}-V_iV_z).\tag{7a}$$
To get this it was necessary to calculate
$$[z,V_i]=[z,H^{-1}P_i]=[z,H^{-1}]P_i+H^{-1}[z,P_i]=i\frac{\delta_{iz}-V_iV_z}{H}\tag{7b}$$
and this required calculating
$$[z,H^{-1}]=[z,(\mathbf{P}^2+m^2)^{-1/2}]=[z,P_z]\frac{\partial}{\partial P_z}(\mathbf{P}^2+m^2)^{-1/2}=-i\frac{P_z}{H^3}.\tag{7c}$$
That last commutator required the identity
$$[A,f(B)]=[A,B]\frac{\partial f}{\partial B}\tag8$$
which holds when $[A,B]$ commutes with both $A$ and $B$.
From (7a) we have
$$[K_z,V_x]=-iV_xV_z\tag{9a}$$
and
$$[K_z,V_z]=i(1-V_z^2).\tag{9b}$$
We're boosting along $z$, so the transverse $y$ direction works the same as the transverse $x$ direction. We'll just do $x$.
From (9a) and (9b) it is possible to grind out the nested commutators. I used Mathematica to do it up to ten nestings. I'll show four of them.
For $V_x$ the nestings are
$$\begin{align}
[K_z,V_x]&=-iV_xV_z\tag{10a}\\
[K_z,[K_z,V_x]]&=V_x \left(1-2 V_z^2\right)\tag{10b}\\
[K_z,[K_z,[K_z,V_x]]]&=i V_x V_z \left(-5+6 V_z^2\right)\tag{10c}\\
[K_z,[K_z,[K_z,[K_z,V_x]]]]&=V_x \left(5-28 V_z^2+ 24 V_z^4\right)\tag{10d}
\end{align}$$
and for $V_z$ the nestings are
$$\begin{align}
[K_z,V_z]&=i(1-V_z^2)\tag{11a}\\
[K_z,[K_z,V_x]]&=2 V_z \left(1-V_z^2\right)\tag{11b}\\
[K_z,[K_z,[K_z,V_z]]]&=2 i \left(1-4 V_z^2+3 V_z^4\right)\tag{11c}\\
[K_z,[K_z,[K_z,[K_z,V_z]]]]&=8 V_z \left(2-5 V_z^2+3 V_z^4\right).\tag{11d}
\end{align}$$
As you can see, there is no obvious pattern. It’s basically a mess.
You can then insert these nested commutators into (6) and expand $\tanh^{-1}\beta$ in powers of $\beta$. The result through order $\beta^4$ is
$$\begin{align}
{V_x}'&=\beta V_x V_z
+\beta ^2 \left(V_x V_z^2-\frac{V_x}{2}\right)
+\beta ^3 \left(V_x V_z^3-\frac{V_x V_z}{2}\right)\\
&+\beta ^4 \left(V_x V_z^4-\frac{1}{2} V_x V_z^2-\frac{V_x}{8}\right)
+O\left(\beta ^5\right)\tag{12a}
\end{align}$$
$$\begin{align}
{V_z}'&=V_z
+\beta \left(V_z^2-1\right)
+\beta ^2 \left(V_z^3-V_z\right)
+\beta ^3 \left(V_z^4-V_z^2\right)\\
&+\beta ^4 \left(V_z^5-V_z^3\right)
+O\left(\beta ^5\right).\tag{12b}
\end{align}$$
(12a) is the Taylor expansion of (2a), and (12b) is the Taylor expansion of (2c). (I verified it through order $\beta^{10}$.) This shows the equivalence of the two ways, (1) and (2), of doing a relativistic velocity transformation.
I would be impressed if anyone can prove the equivalence without doing it order-by-order in powers of $\beta$.
This does not motivate why $\tanh^{-1}\beta$ appears in (1). But if it didn't appear in that way, (1) would not be equivalent to (2). I will write a separate answer explaining why you might expect $\tanh^{-1}\beta$ to appear as the factor multiplying the boost generator in the exponential.