Crisis PR: The Rules for Survival of Public Opinion in Web3 Projects

Author: JE Labs

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation, and it only takes 5 minutes to destroy it," --- Warren Buffett

Recently, the market seems to be in an amplifier of FUD sentiment - even the slightest technical vulnerability, or the minutiae within the community, can quickly ferment into a "crisis" under the high spread effect of social networks, so there are many industry partners to communicate with us on how to "turn the crisis into safety".

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

We summarize the three common types of crises in Web3 projects, and combine the 5S principles verified in our practice to tailor response strategies for each type of crisis, so as to help project parties stabilize trust in the midst of uncertainty and turn pressure into opportunities. Hopefully, these methods will help more Web3 builders to become more courageous in the storm.

📖 There are three types of crises and how to deal with them

1.1 Rumors and misunderstandings: The crisis of trust stems from poor information, and an efficient clarification and credible voice mechanism are needed

Many crises erupt not because of the problems of the project itself, but because of the misunderstanding of information in the process of fragmented dissemination - such crises are often triggered by out-of-context quotes, screenshot clips, and misunderstanding of rules, and once spread, the project may be labeled as "opaque" or even "runaway".

1️⃣ Respond quickly and seize the right to speak: In the face of rumors, rhythm and posture are the most critical. The project team should give feedback as soon as possible, even if it is just a concise sentence: "We have paid attention to the relevant discussion and are verifying", which can effectively curb the further fermentation of community sentiment. The initial response does not need to give all the answers, but it must show that "we are watching, we are doing", so that the community can see the attitude and actions of the project team.

2️⃣ Fight back with facts, don't be emotional: Be sure to stick to facts as an anchor when responding. Don't be led away by attacks, let alone get caught up in arguments and accusations. Once the tone of the project team is antagonistic or emotional, it is easy to trigger a secondary crisis and make the situation even more out of control. Only by speaking with facts and supporting it with data can we truly calm down misunderstandings and panics.

3️⃣ Speak with a trusted third party: Also, it's best for projects not to go it alone in the face of misunderstandings. The approval of technical partners, ecological partners, or KOLs who have supported the project for a long time is often more convincing than the project party's self-testimonial. Reasonable mobilization of external endorsement resources can help to quickly break through doubts and speculation. For technical misinterpretations, the project team should also take the initiative to disassemble key information in an easy-to-understand and visual way through diagrams, threads and other forms, and use "community language" as a professional "translation" to truly resolve misunderstandings and rebuild understanding.

1.2 Product Bugs: Chain reactions caused by defects, and trust is rebuilt with execution and transparent repair

When a crisis involves the product itself, the emotions of the community tend to be more sensitive. Whether it's product bugs, asset anomalies, or missing features and rollout delays, the ripple effects they cause should not be underestimated. The foundation of user trust is often based on "whether your product is secure" and "whether the mechanism is credible". At this time, what the project team needs to show is not the ability to explain, but the ability to solve.

1️⃣ Verify the status quo and show your attitude: The first step is to quickly let users know that you are aware and have taken action. The project team shall issue a preliminary response within 3 hours after the problem is exposed, confirming that the problem has been found and starting to investigate. There is no need to explain the details at this point, but it is important to show the importance and willingness to deal with the problem. This is not only information disclosure, but also a transmission of confidence. Attitudes determine direction, and ambiguity, avoidance, and delayed responses will only lead to deeper unease in the community.

2️⃣ Disclose the plan and plan to implement: Within 24 hours after the initial response, the project team should come up with a specific remediation description and action plan, including: the cause of the problem, the attribution of responsibility, the remediation timeline, the launch expectation, and whether user assets and compensation mechanisms are involved. If it can be combined with the governance process and confirmed and monitored by the community participation program, it will greatly enhance the transparency and credibility of implementation. The goal of this phase is to let the user see that "the problem is being systematically solved".

3️⃣ Proper aftermath and response compensation plan: The damage caused by product problems cannot stop at "repair completed", and it is also necessary to formulate a proper aftermath and compensation mechanism in a targeted manner. In the 3~7-day cycle, the project team should provide phased progress reports (such as test screenshots, contract update records, etc.) so that the community can verify the results. At the same time, it should clearly respond to whether or not to provide reasonable compensation to affected users, even if it is just a symbolic action, it can also show that the project attaches importance to and is committed to the user experience.

Crisis response is not as simple as fixing a product. This process is a concentrated test of your transparency, execution and sense of responsibility by the community. If done right, the project can even be used to rebuild and upgrade trust. Rather than "whether the crisis is solved", the community is more concerned about "how the project is solved". This will also be part of the long-term brand equity of the project.

1.3 Team turmoil: Go back to the core of the project and respond to challenges with governance and openness

In Web3 projects, "human" issues such as founder remarks, team disputes, or management mistakes can also cause a fierce public opinion storm. This type of crisis is also the most intractable, often involving conflicting values, power games, and the tearing down of trust foundations. The key to dealing with this crisis is to shift the topic from "individuals" to "projects".

1️⃣ Clarify the position and attitude: The first task of the project team is to make a clear statement, not only to let the community know the attitude of dealing with the problem, but also to convey the project's firm position on the values and governance structure. Whether it is a change in the internal team or a dispute caused by personal remarks, the project team should respond clearly at the first time, abandon the posture of "internal processing", and take the initiative to show the community a clear organizational governance logic. If a key member leaves, indicate whether the handover arrangement will affect the progress of the project roadmap. More importantly, the timely release of official statements indicating that the project will not deviate from its core goals and course due to individual members.

2️⃣ Emphasize the core of the project and divert the contradictions: At this time, the project team needs to direct the topic back to the project itself. For Web3 projects, the community's primary concern is not the issue of a team member, but the sustainability and compliance of the project itself. Fluctuations in public opinion caused by team disputes or management issues can easily make the outside world question whether the project is stable and whether it will be affected by infighting. At this point, the project team should emphasize that the core of the Web3 project is the contract, governance, and consensus mechanism, rather than a specific individual or temporary team. Reaffirming the project's vision and core values is key to avoiding emotional controversy.

3️⃣ Public apology: When the crisis is serious, a timely public apology can help the project establish a responsible image and alleviate the negative emotions of the community. A public apology is not only a ceremonial step, but also an expression of the project team's willingness to take responsibility, indicating the project team's reflection and improvement of the team's behavior. If the crisis involves specific losses or violations, a sincere apology and a positive compensation package can be effective in rebuilding trust.

In the event of a crisis caused by such a team turmoil, the project team can shift the focus of public opinion from the individual to the project itself to the greatest extent possible through a transparent governance structure, a firm defense of core values, and a timely handling of each incident. In this way, the community can be stabilized in the turmoil and the long-term foundation of the project can be consolidated.

📅 Controlling the rhythm of the crisis: a three-stage response to create a systematic mechanism for public relations

Regardless of the type of crisis, a standardized, executable framework for pacing is needed. We recommend a "three-stage response mechanism":

Initial response (within 1–3 hours): Quickly demonstrate an informed and responsible attitude, and occupy the information field;

Detailed description (within 24 hours): with repair plan, attribution of responsibility, compensation arrangement;

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

This framework can help the project complete the three-step operation of stabilizing emotions, winning buffers, and conveying sincerity before the emotional outburst, and effectively prevent the crisis from getting out of control.

🔐 The three-tiered structure of crisis PR: a long-term mechanism from "extinguishing fires" to "transforming".

Tactics can stop temporary crises, but only by cultivating a long-term mechanism can we build a real moat, and only when the project encounters a crisis can we be fearless, respond quickly, and effectively solve it:

👀 Prevention: Establish an early warning strategy for public opinion

Web3 spreads extremely fast, and project teams must have the ability to "see the dark clouds". By setting up keyword monitoring, regular community inspections, and emotional trend data analysis, a fixed detection mechanism is formed to realize the continuous perception of public opinion on Discord, Twitter, TG and other platforms.

The goal is simple: before the storm comes, preparations are already underway.

✍️ Response level: rapid response + multilingual collaboration mechanism

In the event of a crisis, the project is to immediately activate the operational mechanism. We recommend preparing a "modular script library" where content, legal, and technical roles can write templates for different scenarios in advance. Multilingual operators/partners/KOLs need to respond synchronously within 3 hours, covering the mainstream language areas to prevent a "silent" information vacuum.

📓 Aftermath level: governance mechanism + narrative reconstruction

The real PR is not the "flameout" of the crisis, but the "rebuilding" of the confidence of the community. After the incident is resolved, the project can turn a crisis into an endorsement of brand trust through improvement proposals, community governance voting, open and transparent upgrade plans, etc., as an opportunity to reshape the project vision, guide users from "doubters" to "co-builders", and perhaps become a new narrative for the brand.

🔍 Crises are just magnifying glasses, PR is just firewalls

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

JE Labs has always believed that crisis management capabilities are not based on the "clever words" of a response, but on whether the project team continues to build long-term trust and is willing to take responsibility to the end. Before the crisis hits, we need to make "accountability" part of the project culture, and polish governance and multilingual response mechanisms into standard configurations.

As Mr. Churchill said, "Never squander a good crisis." When handled properly, the crisis itself can be a turning point for the project to strengthen awareness and trust.