Off the Record vs On Background: Meaning for Crypto Founders

"On background" means the reporter can use what you say but won't name you; they'll attribute it to a description such as "a person familiar with the matter." "Off the record" means the reporter agrees not to publish what you say at all, and usually not to use it unless they confirm it elsewhere. Both only apply if the reporter agrees before you speak, and definitions vary between newsrooms, so ask how their outlet uses each term. For most crypto founders, the better default is to stay on the record.

What do the attribution terms actually mean?

There are four levels you'll hear about. Here's the plain-English version, with the caveat that individual outlets and reporters sometimes draw the lines a little differently.

The thing founders get wrong most often is treating "off the record" as a magic phrase that protects anything they say. It isn't. It's an agreement between two people, and like any agreement, it needs both of them to say yes, at the start, with the same understanding of what it means.

An embargo is a different animal. It controls when something can be published, not who said it. If you're mixing the two up, my embargo, exclusive and briefing decision framework separates them.

How do you agree on attribution before you speak?

You state the terms, the reporter accepts them, and only then do you say the sensitive thing. Announcing "that was off the record" after you've said it is a request, not a rule. A reporter may honour it as a courtesy. They don't have to.

I give founders a short script I call the four-line ground rules. It takes thirty seconds and removes most of the risk:

1. Name the term. "Before I answer, can we go on background for this part?"
2. Define it out loud. "By background I mean you can use the information, attributed to someone familiar with the project, but not my name."
3. Get an explicit yes. Wait for the reporter to agree. A nod on video or "sure" in a call counts; silence doesn't.
4. Mark the exit. "OK, back on the record now." Then say it again in writing afterwards if the conversation mixed terms.

If the reporter says no, you have your answer. Either say it on the record or don't say it.

Two practical rules sit around the script. Agree terms per topic, not per call; it's normal for most of an interview to be on record with one short background section. And if a PR person is on the call, they should confirm the terms in a follow-up email that same day, so nobody is relying on memory.

Why should founders mostly stay on the record?

Because your name is the asset. A founder interview exists to build a public, attributable voice: quotes people can search, link and cite. Every sentence said on background is a sentence that builds the reporter's story without building your reputation.

There's a trust argument too. Crypto has spent years in a credibility hole, and anonymous sourcing from projects doesn't help. Reputation in this industry is built in public, one attributable interaction at a time, and that's true for PR people as much as founders.

PR is the launchpad to build authentic & genuine reputation Shilika Jain on X, 11 Jul 2025

A reputation can't be built from quotes nobody can attach to you. The founders who show up in the media by name are the ones who earn credibility from it. Reporters notice the difference between a source who stands behind their words and one who only talks in the dark.

On-record also keeps you consistent. Everything you say publicly has to agree with what your team, your docs and your community channels say. That's hard enough without a parallel set of unattributed comments floating around.

comms is so underrated in web3 but that's everything! how you communicate w your community, stakeholders, customers, retail users, airdrop hunters, journos is literally everything! Shilika Jain on X, 3 Jun 2025

When is background the right call?

There are real situations where background helps both you and the reporter. The test I use is the record-default check: say it on record unless one of these is true.

• Context, not claims. You're explaining how something works (a bridge design, a market-maker loan structure, why a vesting schedule looks the way it does) so the reporter gets the technical picture right. The facts matter; your name on the explanation doesn't.
• Pointing to public evidence. You're telling a reporter where to look (an on-chain transaction, a governance forum thread, a filing) so they can verify it themselves.
• Industry sensitivity. You're describing a pattern across projects you work with and naming yourself would identify a partner who hasn't consented.
• Live legal or security process. Something is under investigation and you can share direction but not detail. Get your lawyer's view first; background isn't a legal shield.

And when it isn't the right call:

• To criticise a competitor without owning it.
• To float a claim about your own project you're not willing to defend.
• To test a story you haven't finalised internally.
• Anything about token price, listings or partnerships you can't confirm.

If any item on that second list is the reason you want background, the honest answer is not to say it.

What can go wrong with off-the-record conversations?

More than founders expect. A few failure modes I plan around:

• Mismatched definitions. You think off the record means "never use this." The reporter thinks it means "don't quote me but I can chase it." Both are common understandings. That's why step two of the script matters.
• Independent confirmation. Even a scrupulous reporter can publish information you shared off the record if a second source confirms it. You told them where to dig.
• Group settings. A dinner, a panel green room or a Telegram group with several people is not an off-the-record setting just because you say so. Everyone in the room would need to agree, and they won't all be bound the same way.
• Events. At conferences, reporters are working. A casual chat at a side event can end up in a story if no terms were set. I tell founders at events to assume they're on record by default unless they've agreed otherwise with that reporter.
• The burned source problem. If you use off-the-record too often, reporters learn that you're useful only in private. That's not the relationship you want.

How do these terms play out in a critical story?

Pressure makes founders reach for background most. A reporter is writing something unflattering, and the instinct is to explain your side without being quoted.

Sometimes that's sensible: walking a reporter through the facts on background can correct a wrong assumption before it hits print. But if the story will run with or without you, an on-record statement is usually stronger, because it puts your side in the article under your name. A source "familiar with the project" disputing a claim reads weakly next to named critics.

Responding to a critical story is its own discipline, covered in my piece on how to respond to a journalist request for comment. The short version for this question: decide your on-record position first, then decide whether any background context would genuinely help accuracy.

A worked example: one interview, three terms

This is what a clean version looks like. A founder is doing a 30-minute call with a trade reporter about a protocol upgrade.

After the call, the PR lead emails a one-line recap: "Thanks for today. To confirm, minutes 20 to 25 on the rival design were on background; everything else on the record." No drama, no ambiguity.

That's how I prepare founders in founder profiling work: the attribution plan is part of the interview brief, not an afterthought.

When this advice doesn't fully apply

If you're a whistleblower, a source inside a company that isn't yours, or someone facing genuine safety risks, the calculation is different and anonymity can be essential. This post is written for founders and executives speaking about their own projects, where being named is usually the point.

Norms also differ across countries and outlets. Some newsrooms have stricter rules about anonymous sourcing than others, and some avoid unnamed quotes entirely. When in doubt, ask the reporter how their editor treats background material before you agree to anything.

For more on preparing for interviews in general, see the first media interview checklist, and if you want to become the founder reporters call on record, read how to become a source for crypto journalists.

FAQ

Can I go off the record by email?

You can ask, but write the terms at the top of the email and wait for the reporter to agree before sending the sensitive part. Never put something in writing that you'd regret seeing quoted, because emails get forwarded and saved. For anything truly sensitive, a call after agreed terms is safer.

Does "no comment" count as off the record?

No. "No comment" is an on-record response, and it's often printed as "declined to comment." If you have nothing to add, a short on-record line explaining why you can't comment usually reads better.

Can a reporter name me if I said something off the record by mistake?

If you didn't agree terms first, the reporter is generally within their rights to treat it as on the record. Many will be fair if you ask quickly and the slip was minor, but that's goodwill, not an obligation.

Should my PR person stay on the call?

For first interviews and anything sensitive, yes. They can keep track of which parts were agreed as background and confirm terms in writing afterwards, which protects both you and the reporter.

Have a sensitive interview coming up and unsure what to say on record? Get in touch and I'll help you set the ground rules before you dial in.