A protocol and its users are not having the same emergency

I build in crypto, and I keep coming back to one structural thing that I think generalizes past my space, curious if it maps to yours.

When a protocol gets hacked, it gets talked about as one event. It is actually two emergencies happening at once, and they barely overlap.

The protocol's emergency: pause the contracts, trace the funds, pull in security firms, coordinate, get a statement out. All correct, all about the protocol surviving. That plays out over hours and days, and that is the right pace for the protocol.

The user's emergency is completely different and runs on a different clock. Did this touch my wallet. Did I approve that contract. Is my money still there. What do I do in the next ten minutes. The user panics in minutes and gets a pinned post and a link to a chat room. The fast emergency ends up waiting on the slow one.

The part that got me: this is not negligence. A protocol genuinely cannot field thousands of individualized "am I exposed" questions mid-incident, and answering them is not what saves the protocol. The gap is structural. The person with the most at stake is the one nobody is positioned to answer in real time.

What made me build around it is that the information that would answer the user already exists, on-chain, public, the whole time. Whether your wallet holds a live approval. What a transaction actually did. What moved. It is just never packaged for a frightened non-expert in the moment they need it.

The thing I keep noticing is that this pattern, the buyer or operator and the end-user having different emergencies on different clocks, shows up well outside crypto. Anywhere the entity with the budget and the entity with the acute, time-bound pain are different people.

Question for the room: in your space, is there a moment where your user's emergency and your customer's emergency are not the same emergency? And who, if anyone, is positioned to answer the user in that window?