Crisis Communications Response Strategy + Media Management

Crisis Communications: Market Maker Scandal & Co-Founder Departure

Client and individual names have been removed per NDA. The statements, strategy, and response framework are representative of the original work.

This sample is from a crisis communications response I ran for a blockchain project after a market maker scandal became public. A third-party market maker linked to the project had dumped a significant percentage of the token supply shortly after launch, netting tens of millions in profit and crashing the price. A major exchange froze the proceeds and another suspended trading. The story was being covered by every major crypto outlet.

Compounding the crisis: the co-founder who had championed the market maker deal was being pushed out. At the time I was preparing the response, leadership was negotiating his departure but didn't know whether he would leave quietly or go public and attack the company. That meant I had to prepare for two very different scenarios simultaneously.

What I Built

An immediate holding statement for the company, two parallel response tracks depending on the co-founder's behavior, prepared responses for reporter inquiries, and ongoing media management as the story developed.

Situation Assessment

The market maker scandal itself was already public. Multiple outlets had the details: the token dump, the frozen funds, the exchange suspensions. The company couldn't deny any of it.
The co-founder's role in brokering the deal was known internally but not yet public. If he was forced out and decided to retaliate, he had a large social media following and could shape the narrative before the company could respond.
Reporters were already reaching out. Every hour without a statement was an hour where the only narrative was the scandal itself.
The company's credibility was at its lowest point. Any statement that sounded defensive, evasive, or corporate would make things worse.
The strategic priority was clear: get ahead of the story with something honest and actionable, then be ready for whichever direction the co-founder situation went.

Step 1: Immediate Holding Statement

The first thing I drafted was an immediate public statement from the company. The goal was to acknowledge the situation without getting into specifics that could backfire, and to announce a concrete action (the third-party investigation) so the company had something forward-looking to point to.

We are aware of the serious concerns that have been raised regarding the [token] launch and the conduct of a third-party market maker. We share the community's frustration and are committed to full transparency.

Effective immediately, we are engaging [independent security firm] to conduct a thorough, independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the market maker agreement, the token sale, and the resulting impact on our community. We are cooperating fully with all relevant exchanges and will make the findings of this investigation public upon completion.

We understand that trust is earned and that words alone are not enough. We are taking this step because our community deserves a complete and honest accounting of what happened. Until the investigation concludes, we are unable to comment further on the specifics, but we will provide updates as they become available.

Key Decisions

Lead with acknowledgment, not defense. "We share the community's frustration" signals the company isn't going to pretend this is fine.
Announce an action, not just words. The third-party investigation gives the company something concrete and credible. It also creates a reason not to comment on specifics without sounding evasive.
Don't name the co-founder. The statement addresses the scandal without referencing the internal leadership situation, which was still unresolved.

Step 2: Two-Track Co-Founder Response Plan

While the holding statement bought time, I prepared parallel response plans for the co-founder situation. Leadership was negotiating his departure but couldn't guarantee the outcome. I needed statements ready for both scenarios before either one happened.

Track A: Peaceful Departure

If the co-founder left on good terms

[Co-founder] has made significant contributions to [Project] since its founding, and we respect his decision to step away. As we've shared, we are conducting a full independent investigation into recent events, and the restructuring of our leadership team reflects our commitment to accountability and a path forward that serves this community. We wish [Co-founder] well and remain focused on building.

Gracious but brief. Don't oversell the relationship. Don't re-litigate the scandal. Point back to the investigation and restructuring as the forward story.

Track B: Hostile Departure

If the co-founder went public with attacks

We are aware of statements made by [Co-founder] regarding his departure from [Project]. While we understand this is a difficult situation for everyone involved, we will not engage in a public dispute.

The facts of the situation are being examined through an independent investigation, which we initiated and which we have committed to making public. We believe the community is best served by that process, not by competing narratives on social media.

Our focus remains on accountability, transparency, and building a project that earns back the trust of our community.

Do not engage point by point. Do not attack back. Redirect to the investigation as the single source of truth. The goal is to make the company look like the adult in the room.

The co-founder ultimately departed on peaceful terms and posted a measured statement. Track A was deployed. Track B was never needed, but having it ready meant the company was never more than an hour away from a response regardless of what happened.

Step 3: Reporter Inquiry Management

Once the holding statement was out, reporter inquiries started coming in. I prepared a Q&A document with approved responses for each anticipated question. The guiding principle: acknowledge what we can, point to the investigation for anything we can't, and never speculate or assign blame.

Q: What was the company's relationship with the market maker?

"The market maker agreement was brokered through a third-party intermediary. We are examining the full circumstances of that agreement as part of our independent investigation and will share findings publicly."

Q: Is [Co-founder] leaving the company?

"We are restructuring our leadership team as part of our commitment to accountability. We will share more details when appropriate and are focused on ensuring the project is positioned for long-term success."

Q: What happens to the frozen funds?

"We are working with the relevant exchanges regarding the frozen assets. Our priority is ensuring any recovered funds are used to benefit the community, and we will share specifics once those discussions are finalized."

I also coordinated directly with the client on incoming requests that went beyond the approved Q&A, flagging questions that required legal review before responding and ensuring no one on the team freelanced a quote.

What Made This Work

Speed with discipline. The holding statement went out fast enough to give the company a voice in the story before the narrative calcified. But it was careful enough not to create new problems. Every word was deliberate.
Scenario planning before the crisis branched. Having both tracks drafted before the co-founder made his decision meant the company was never caught flat-footed. The worst thing in a crisis is scrambling to write a statement while the internet is melting down.
One voice, no freelancing. Every public statement, every reporter response, every social post went through a single approval chain. No one on the team went off-script. In a crisis this messy, the fastest way to make things worse is for two people to say two different things.

Bottom Line

Crisis comms isn't about making bad news disappear. It's about controlling the pace, owning the narrative you can own, and making sure the company looks like it's taking the situation seriously. The market maker scandal was real and damaging. The response didn't try to spin it. It acknowledged the problem, announced an investigation, prepared for the worst-case co-founder scenario, and gave reporters honest answers within the bounds of what could be said.