I think that if development updates are made on the blockchain, and they get support via the blockchain, then development can be said to be "on the blockchain", though it's still a little bit iffy. Really, you would want to put the actual code on the blockchain to say even that.

But, I support SteemWorld with my tiny upvotes on the developer's support posts. I'm perfectly fine with that. His tool is for Steem and he includes updates about new features and ongoing development in the posts. But, if there was a project that had nothing to do with Steem and it was just doing posts about the ongoing development and future features and such, I would possibly still support it. Would of course depend on what it is. I think funding a small project with funds from posts on it's development is perfectly valid. But that doesn't make it "on the blockchain".

Crypto is pretty obsessed with white papers...and blue papers. Something doesn't necessarily have to have a white paper. But, in the crypto space, it definitely helps. If it doesn't have a white paper, it should at least lay out some of what would normally be in a white paper in some other way. If they aren't clear about what they're doing, then some people won't be comfortable. Of course, sometimes it's advantageous for people to not be fully clear on what it is...like when it's a scam.

My perfect project would have it somewhat clear what it was doing, white paper or no, and be open source, but that doesn't mean every project has to be. Some might want to keep their plans close to their vest. Crypto and open source mix pretty well though. A lot of people aren't that trusting when people aren't open in the crypto space. They want a clear plan and open source. Though, they don't seem to have too many problems with very weird people, so that's kinda cool, sometimes.