Never waste a good crisis.

Author: JE Labs

“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.” --- Warren Buffett

Recently, the market seems to be in an amplifier of FUD emotions— even minor technical flaws or internal community details can quickly escalate into a "crisis" under the high dissemination effect of social networks. As a result, many industry partners have come to us to discuss how to "turn crisis into safety."

In our view, effective crisis public relations is never just about "explaining," but about continuously conveying to the community at every stage: “We are responsible.”

We have summarized three types of crises commonly found in Web3 projects and tailored response strategies for each type based on our verified 5S principles to help project teams stabilize trust amid uncertainty and turn pressure into opportunity. We hope these methods can assist more Web3 builders to become more resilient in the face of challenges.

📖 Three Types of Crises and Response Plans

1.1 Rumors and Misunderstandings: Trust crises stemming from information gaps require efficient clarification and credible communication mechanisms

Many crises do not arise from issues within the project itself but from misunderstandings during the fragmented dissemination of information—these crises are often triggered by out-of-context quotes, edited screenshots, or misinterpretations of rules. Once spread, the project may be labeled as "opaque" or even "running away."

1️⃣ Quick response to seize the narrative: In the face of rumor-related public opinion, timing and tone are crucial. The project team should provide feedback as soon as possible, even if it's just a concise statement: “We are aware of the relevant discussions and are verifying.” This can effectively curb further escalation of community emotions. The initial response does not need to provide all answers but must indicate “we are watching, we are acting,” allowing the community to see the project team's attitude and actions.

2️⃣ Fact-based rebuttal, avoid emotional responses: When responding, it is essential to anchor the response in facts. Do not let attacks dictate the narrative, and avoid getting into arguments or accusations. If the project team's tone becomes confrontational or emotional, it can easily trigger a secondary crisis, making the situation more uncontrollable. Only by speaking with facts and supporting with data can misunderstandings and panic be truly alleviated.

3️⃣ Leverage credible third-party voices: Additionally, when facing misunderstandings, it is best for the project not to fight alone. Technical partners, ecosystem partners, or long-term supporters of the project can often provide more persuasive endorsements than the project team can prove themselves. Reasonably mobilizing external endorsement resources can help quickly break through doubts and speculations. For technical misinterpretations, the project team should also proactively use diagrams, threads, and other formats to break down key information in an understandable and visual way, using "community language" as a professional "translation" to truly resolve misunderstandings and rebuild understanding.

1.2 Product Bugs: Chain reactions caused by defects require execution and transparent repairs to rebuild trust

When a crisis involves the product itself, community emotions are often more sensitive. Whether it’s product vulnerabilities, asset anomalies, or missing features and delayed launches, the chain reactions they trigger should not be underestimated. The foundation of user trust is often built on “Is your product safe?” and “Is the mechanism trustworthy?” At this time, what the project team needs to demonstrate is not the ability to explain, but the ability to solve.

1️⃣ Verify the situation, express your stance: The first step is to quickly let users know that you are aware and have taken action. The project team should issue an initial response within 3 hours after the issue is exposed, confirming that the problem has been identified and is being investigated. At this point, there is no need to explain details, but it is essential to show seriousness and willingness to address the issue. This is not just information disclosure but also a confidence transmission. Attitude determines direction; vague, evasive, or delayed responses will only deepen community unease.

2️⃣ Publicize the plan, implement it: Within 24 hours after the initial response, the project team should present a specific repair explanation and action plan, including: the cause of the problem, responsibility attribution, repair timeline, expected launch, and whether it involves user assets and compensation mechanisms. If possible, involving the community in confirming and supervising the plan through governance processes will greatly enhance transparency and execution credibility. The goal at this stage is to let users see that “the problem is being systematically resolved.”

3️⃣ Proper follow-up, respond to compensation plans: The damage caused by product issues cannot stop at “repair completed”; it also requires a targeted and proper follow-up and compensation mechanism. Within 3 to 7 days, the project team should provide periodic progress reports (such as testing screenshots, contract update records, etc.) so that the community can verify the results. At the same time, clearly respond to whether reasonable compensation will be provided to affected users; even symbolic actions can reflect the project’s commitment to user experience and responsibility.

Crisis response is not just about fixing the product. This process is a concentrated test of the community's perception of your transparency, execution ability, and sense of responsibility. If handled properly, the project can even use this opportunity to rebuild and upgrade trust. The community cares more about “how the project solved the crisis” than “whether the crisis is resolved.” This will also become part of the project brand's long-term assets.

1.3 Team Turmoil: Return to the core of the project, using governance and transparency to address challenges

In Web3 projects, issues related to founder statements, team disputes, or management errors can also trigger intense public opinion storms. These crises often involve conflicts of values, power struggles, and the tearing of trust foundations, making them the most challenging type of crisis. The key to addressing this type of crisis is to shift the focus from the “individual” to the “project.”

1️⃣ Clarify the position, express the stance: The primary task of the project team is to clearly state their position, not only to let the community know the attitude towards handling the issue but also to convey the project’s firm stance on values and governance structure. Whether it’s changes in internal team members or controversies arising from individual statements, the project team should respond promptly, abandoning the “internal handling” posture and proactively showing the community a clear organizational governance logic. If a key member leaves, it should be stated how the handover will be arranged and whether it will affect the project roadmap. More importantly, timely release an official statement indicating that the project will not deviate from its core goals and roadmap due to individual members.

2️⃣ Emphasize the project core, shift the focus of conflict: At this time, the project team needs to guide the topic back to the project itself. For Web3 projects, the community is most concerned not about the issues of a specific team member but about the sustainability and compliance of the project itself. Public opinion fluctuations caused by team disputes or management issues can easily lead outsiders to question whether the project is stable and whether it will be affected by internal conflicts. At this point, the project team should emphasize that the core of Web3 projects is contracts, governance, and consensus mechanisms, rather than any specific individual or temporary team. Reiterating the project’s vision and core values is key to preventing the spread of emotional disputes.

3️⃣ Official intervention, public apology: When the crisis situation is serious, a timely public apology can help the project establish a responsible image and alleviate negative emotions in the community. A public apology is not just a ceremonial step; it also expresses the project team’s willingness to take responsibility and reflects on and improves team behavior. If the crisis involves specific losses or infringements, a sincere apology and proactive compensation plan can effectively rebuild trust.

For crises triggered by team turmoil, the project team can maximize the shift of public opinion focus from individuals to the project itself through transparent governance structures, a firm defense of core values, and timely handling of each event. This way, the community can be stabilized amid the turmoil, solidifying the project’s long-term foundation.

📅 Controlling the Rhythm of Crisis: Three-Stage Response to Build a Systematic PR Mechanism

Regardless of the type of crisis, a standardized and executable rhythm control framework is needed. We recommend adopting a “three-stage response mechanism”:

• Initial response (within 1–3 hours): Quickly express awareness and responsible attitude, occupy the information forefront;

• Detailed explanation (within 24 hours): Accompany with repair plans, responsibility attribution, and compensation arrangements;

• Follow-up feedback (within 3–7 days): Deliver transparent results, update future prevention mechanisms, and invite community supervision.

This framework can help the project stabilize emotions, gain buffer time, and convey sincerity before emotional outbursts, effectively avoiding crisis loss of control.

🔐 Three-Tier Structure of Crisis PR: From “Firefighting” to “Transformation” Long-Term Mechanism

Tactics can address immediate dangers, but only by cultivating long-term mechanisms can a true moat be built, allowing the project to respond quickly and effectively when crises arise:

👀 Prevention Level: Establish Public Opinion Early Warning Strategies

The speed of dissemination in Web3 is extremely fast, and project teams must have the ability to “see the dark clouds.” By setting up keyword monitoring, conducting regular community inspections, and analyzing emotional trend data, a fixed detection mechanism can be formed to achieve continuous perception of public opinion on platforms like Discord, Twitter, and TG.

The goal is simple: to be prepared before the storm arrives.

✍️ Response Level: Quick Reaction + Multilingual Collaboration Mechanism

Once a crisis occurs, the project must immediately activate the combat mechanism. We recommend preparing a “modular speech library,” with templates for different scenarios written in advance by roles in content, legal, and technical fields. Multilingual operations/partners/KOLs should respond within 3 hours, covering mainstream language areas to prevent an information vacuum of “silence.”

📓 Follow-Up Level: Governance Mechanism + Narrative Reconstruction

True public relations is not about “putting out the fire” of a crisis but about “rebuilding” community confidence. After the event is resolved, the project can transform a crisis into a brand trust endorsement through improved proposals, community governance voting, and publicly transparent upgrade plans, using this opportunity to reshape the project vision and guide users from “doubters” to “co-builders,” which may become a new narrative for the brand.

🔍 A Crisis is Just a Magnifying Glass, PR is Just a Firewall

Ultimately, every crisis is actually a magnified examination of a project’s usual accumulation. Whether the project has a stable community atmosphere, long-term KOL relationships, and recognized brand trustworthiness cannot be remedied by temporary public relations.

JE Labs firmly believes that crisis management capability is not built on a single response of “smooth talk” but on whether the project team is continuously building long-term trust and whether they are willing to take full responsibility. Before a crisis arrives, we should make “responsibility” a part of the project culture and refine governance mechanisms and multilingual response mechanisms into standard configurations.

As Mr. Churchill said: “Never waste a good crisis.” If handled properly, the crisis itself can become a turning point for the project to strengthen recognition and enhance trust.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。