Community-first. Progressive decentralisation. Transparent governance. These phrases surface again and again across whitepapers, decks, and governance forums. They give early reassurance but also erase distinction. What once sounded like intent now reads as the default setting.
Repetition turns values into background. When the words blur, behaviour takes their place.

In Web3, safe words are used to sound credible before practices are in place. They steady a launch but quickly lose force as organisations reach for the same script. Once they fade into the background, credibility depends on what follows. Communities, investors, and teams pay attention to decisions, not declarations. Culture and brand are revealed not by the value statements that start a project but by the practices that persist.

In Whitepapers, on launch decks, across DAO forums, the same familiar phrases return.

Community-first. Progressive decentralisation. Transparent governance.

Variations of these commitments appear so often that they form a default menu for how to sound legitimate in Web3.

The pattern is easy to spot. Roadmaps often follow the same arc, with a token launch, decentralisation, ecosystem expansion. Governance frameworks adopt familiar headings, like transparency, accountability, community-first. Product announcements echo identical milestones, testnet, mainnet, DAO handover.

These words are not meaningless. They reassure potential investors that the project is credible, reassure contributors that the culture will be open, and reassure communities that their voice will matter. Yet because they are so widely repeated, they begin to flatten into wallpaper. Distinction is lost, even when the underlying organisations differ greatly.

The reliance on default values makes sense in context. Most Web3 organisations are new with little track record. They launch into a noisy environment where attention is scarce and legitimacy must be earned quickly.

These phrases provide a shortcut and are a familiar script. They tell backers and investors, builders, and communities, we understand the rules of the field. They are scaffolding that holds the organisation upright while deeper culture forms.

Just as software comes with preset values, Web3 organisations start with preset words. Unless changed, those words remain.

Here lies the tension.

Default values can be both scaffolding and surface. They stabilise at the beginning, but they risk hardening into identity if never replaced.

For emerging organisations, familiar language can carry them through the early phase. It offers a ready-made vocabulary of legitimacy. But over time, the words can become sticky. They linger even when operations move in other directions. The gap grows between what is declared and how decisions are actually made.

The same values that once reassured a community can begin to sound repetitive. What was scaffolding becomes surface.

In traditional organisations, shared values often act as wallpaper. Words like integrity, respect, and innovation appear not because leaders copy each other deliberately but because they reflect what society expects companies to care about. They feel safe because they belong to everyone. The risk is not in the words themselves but in mistaking them for the culture.

In Web3, the same effect is sharper. This field defines itself by difference, and most of its activity is public. When organisations reach for community-first, progressive decentralisation, and transparent governance, the phrases land less as intent and more as defaults. Communities compare words with what actually happens. Behaviour, not declarations, begins to carry the meaning.

Look at governance frameworks. Many DAOs adopt identical decision-making models like token voting, proposal templates, forum debates. Each one includes language around transparency and community-first principles. Yet in practice, decision-making often flows through smaller groups, and communities quickly learn that some voices carry more weight than others.

Scan a dozen launch decks. The milestones are almost interchangeable:

• Testnet launch (trial network)

• Mainnet release (live network)

• Progressive decentralisation (gradual handover of control)

• DAO handover (community governance)

The arc is repeated so often it feels preloaded. The words act as entry keys, signalling that the organisation belongs in the ecosystem.

Again, these patterns are not meaningless. They are recognisable scripts that make early legitimacy possible. But their constant repetition also makes them harder to distinguish from one another. For communities trying to choose where to invest time and energy, the sameness can be numbing.

When default values persist too long, they lose power.

People begin to separate what is said from what is done. Words no longer reassure. They become markers of absence rather than presence.

Founders may use default values to establish credibility at launch. Communities, teams, and investors quickly notice when the words remain in place without being embodied in practice. Over time, this repetition drains meaning.

Energy flows into maintaining the appearance of familiar values rather than creating distinct practices. Contributors grow wary of declarations that feel generic. Communities start to scan for action rather than promises. Investors weigh track records more heavily than roadmaps.

The effect is subtle but cumulative. What once conferred legitimacy begins to produce fatigue. Cynicism replaces confidence.

Not every organisation remains trapped by its defaults. Some use the values as scaffolding only, then build deeper practices beneath them.

Their claims of transparency include information that is awkward as well as flattering. Their governance structures move real resources, not just proposals. Their communities influence meaningful outcomes rather than only symbolic ones.

The difference is not in abandoning familiar words. The difference is in whether those words align with lived reality.

Default values can stabilise an organisation, but only distinct practices can sustain it.

These organisations do not reject the familiar phrases. They expand beyond them, allowing culture to form through repeated choices rather than repeated slogans.

Default values will always be part of Web3. They are easy to reach for at the beginning. What matters is whether they remain as wallpaper or grow into something lived.

Communities already see the difference. They notice where resources move, who decides, and how crises are handled. Words may open the door, but behaviour holds the room.

Culture becomes visible not in what is declared but in what endures once the words have thinned.

Not to define. Just to notice.

This perspective is part of an ongoing series observing how trust, identity and brand shift in systems undergoing change. Written from a background in brand and business growth within traditional environments, these reflections explore how familiar dynamics re-emerge in decentralised contexts.
For the traditional business angle, see the Substack version Default Culture