I will say this material drop changed a few perspectives in my thinking. Before, I thought slow mode was just a barrier used to stop people from complaining or raising their voices. But if I put myself in the founder's perspective, it feels like a legitimate approach. It gives the team enough time to answer user questions properly and prevents the chat from being flooded during a crisis.
1- I once saw a crisis in a project, and the first thing they did was not only enable slow mode but also start deleting user messages. Their team even restricted users from sending messages. I asked a legitimate question that was not disruptive, and they timed me out. That decision took the situation out of control. People started tweeting about the project, and eventually the team had to release a public apology.
2- If the founder is not speaking up, I would try to calm the community by apologizing for what happened, explaining how it happened, and sharing what prevention measures are being taken. I will also ask affected users to open a support ticket if they need technical-related help. This approach would help people feel that the team is actively supporting them through a separate channel while also preventing the main chat from being flooded.
3- The idea of managing the speed of recovery or collapse makes sense to me. After a crisis, emotions usually take over, and people often react without having all the information. Slowing things down gives community members time to think more clearly before making decisions. It can reduce panic selling, prevent misinformation from spreading too quickly, and give the team a chance to communicate properly. I do not see it as covering up a collapse, but rather as creating enough space for facts and communication to catch up with emotions. In some cases, this can help retain potential investors and community members who might otherwise leave due to fear or confusion.