Within a few hours of the Binance hack on 29 October, two people I respect (a comms professional and a journalist) posted two different verdicts.
The comms pro saw an industry often dismissed as immature, growing up overnight. Partners moved quickly and stablecoin issuers froze funds. What’s more, a likely cause was named within hours and customers were promised they’d get their money back. Ten years ago, that level of coordination would have been unthinkable.
The journalist saw the same old story. Around $6.3bn taken, roughly $2.4bn frozen, an insurance fund that reportedly falls short of the gap, and a first reassurance that came from a founder who no longer runs the company.
They’re assessing two different things
Both are right, because they are marking different exams. The first judges the response… speed, coordination, a cause and a commitment. The second judges whether anyone should believe it.
The press, regulators and customers will mostly mark the second. A fast response gets people listening and buys a few hours of goodwill. But it also creates a record, and every statement you make afterwards gets checked against it.
What credibility needs
Once the first wave passes, credibility rests on three things:
The promise has to match the capacity behind it. Pledging to cover losses is the right instinct, but the moment the figures fail to reconcile, the story becomes whether Binance is writing cheques it can’t cash.
The messenger needs clear authority. Customers and journalists want to hear from someone who can commit the company and be held to it. Anyone else, whether a founder or a major shareholder, invites the question of who is really in charge.
The story has to hold. By day three, interest moves from the breach to the clean-up, and that’s often when inconsistencies surface.
The brake nobody mentions
The detail most coverage skipped was who actually limited the damage. Two stablecoin issuers froze around $2.4bn within hours, which did more to contain the losses than any statement from the exchange itself. That is an uncomfortable fact for an industry built on the promise that nobody can freeze your money. The brake worked because a small number of companies hold it, and regulators will no doubt draw their own conclusions.
The lesson here travels well beyond crypto. Any payments or fintech firm’s crisis plan must account for the levers its counterparties hold, whether issuers, banks or partners, because they will shape the story whether you plan for them or not.
Questions to answer while it’s quiet
Every financial business will have its bad day. How it ends is mostly decided long before. Here are the four questions worth answering now:
- Who speaks, and what are they authorised to say or commit to?
- Which numbers would you have to defend, and do they hold up?
- Who else can act on your behalf, and how quickly can you reach them?
- What will you be saying on day five?
Speed gets you a few hours. What people will actually remember is whether the promises you made turned out to be true.
If you need guidance around your crisis comms plan, get in touch.
