# Council Briefing: 2025-06-02 ## Monthly Goal Current focus: Stabilize and attract new users to auto.fun by showcasing 24/7 agent activity (streaming, trading, shitposting), ship production ready elizaOS v2. ## Daily Focus - ElizaOS v2 has been quietly launched with significant technical improvements, but strategic communication and timing decisions must be made before official announcement to maximize impact. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: V2 Launch Communication Strategy **Summary of Topic:** The team has technically shipped ElizaOS v2 but is deliberately delaying public announcement until ecosystem issues are resolved and partner plugins are upgraded, creating a tension between technical readiness and market timing. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** What is the optimal timing strategy for the official V2 announcement? **Context:** - `Shaw explained they've created an automatic plugin updater and are working on upgrading all plugins` - `They need to work out ecosystem issues and want partners to upgrade first before announcing (answered by shaw)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Announce immediately to capitalize on current market attention, despite incomplete ecosystem readiness. *Implication:* Could generate immediate excitement but risks disappointing users if they encounter unresolved issues with plugins or features. b) Continue with the stealth rollout for 1-2 weeks until all critical plugins are updated and the Twitter login system is fixed. *Implication:* Maximizes product quality but risks losing momentum and allowing competitors to capture market attention. c) Announce a staged rollout now, explicitly communicating that V2 is available for early adopters while highlighting the ongoing ecosystem improvements. *Implication:* Balances transparency with quality control while establishing expectations and providing a roadmap for the community. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we address the community's mixed reactions to the current development pace and perceived utility? **Context:** - `Some users expressed frustration about the project's pace and perceived lack of utility` - `Others defended the long-term building approach being taken by the team` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Accelerate feature delivery by prioritizing visible user-facing improvements over architectural stability. *Implication:* Could improve short-term community sentiment at the cost of technical debt and long-term product quality. b) Maintain current development priorities but significantly increase communication about technical progress and roadmap. *Implication:* Preserves development quality while potentially improving community understanding and patience through transparency. c) Shift resources toward creating simplified demos and templates that showcase practical use cases for non-technical users. *Implication:* Addresses utility concerns by making the platform more accessible to a broader audience but may divert resources from core development. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** Which technical aspect of V2 should be highlighted most prominently in the announcement to align with our strategic objectives? **Context:** - `Shaw explained that parallel execution would decrease accuracy and complicate development` - `The system plans multiple actions in a row but executes them sequentially` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) The modular plugin architecture that enables easier extension and customization of agents. *Implication:* Emphasizes the open, extensible nature of the platform and encourages developer ecosystem growth and innovation. b) The improved action planning system that enhances agent reasoning and decision-making capabilities. *Implication:* Highlights the intelligence and autonomy aspects of our agents, aligning with the AGI acceleration mission. c) The new agent terminal GUI that makes the platform more accessible to non-technical users. *Implication:* Focuses on user experience and adoption, potentially accelerating growth of the platform's user base. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Auto.fun Revitalization Strategy **Summary of Topic:** Auto.fun appears to be underutilized despite being a core product in our ecosystem, with opportunities to enhance engagement through staking mechanisms and AI agent integration such as eli5 and The Org. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** What approach should we take to revitalize auto.fun and increase sustainable user engagement? **Context:** - `Mention of a GitHub PR for a potential auto.fun staking mechanism for eli5, eddy and other tokens (mentioned by xell0x)` - `Discussion about revitalizing auto.fun with meme content to attract users` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement the proposed staking mechanism for eli5, eddy, and other tokens to incentivize long-term token holding and platform participation. *Implication:* Creates financial incentives for engagement but may not address underlying product-market fit issues. b) Prioritize The Org launch with eli5 and eddy agents to create a more vibrant and interactive auto.fun experience. *Implication:* Focuses on improving the actual user experience through AI interaction rather than financial mechanisms. c) Develop a comprehensive meme content strategy with AI-generated content to target crypto communities and increase viral growth. *Implication:* Could drive initial traffic but might not translate to sustainable engagement without deeper utility. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we balance technical development resources between elizaOS V2 and auto.fun improvements? **Context:** - `"The Org" is only partially ready for the V2 launch` - `auto.fun launchpad: In development with staking functionality coming soon (PR exists) (Mentioned by xell0x)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Maintain focus on completing V2 technical improvements before shifting resources to auto.fun enhancements. *Implication:* Ensures a solid technical foundation but delays addressing the user attraction goal in our monthly directive. b) Split resources evenly between V2 and auto.fun to make progress on both technical stability and user attraction simultaneously. *Implication:* Advances both goals in parallel but risks slower progress on both fronts due to divided attention. c) Temporarily shift majority of resources to auto.fun improvements while maintaining only critical support for V2. *Implication:* Prioritizes the user attraction goal at the potential cost of technical debt in the core platform. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: DAO Governance Implementation **Summary of Topic:** Despite governance being a core component of our vision for an autonomous DAO, it has not yet been implemented, creating confusion about the relationship between the ElizaOS framework and the ai16z token's utility. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** What should be our priority approach to implementing DAO governance functionality? **Context:** - `The DAO governance functionality is not yet live, though there are plans to leverage AI agents for DAO operations` - `$ai16z is the ticker, elizaOS is the name of the framework and the brand name of the project. Governance is not live but the goal is to leverage AI agents for DAO operations. (Kenk)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement a traditional token-weighted voting system first, then gradually integrate AI agent assistance for governance processes. *Implication:* Provides immediate governance utility for token holders but delays our differentiated AI-enhanced governance vision. b) Develop AI agents specifically designed to analyze governance proposals and provide insights to token holders before implementing the voting mechanism. *Implication:* Advances our unique AI-enhanced governance vision but delays actual decision-making capabilities for the DAO. c) Create a hybrid approach where simple governance decisions use token voting while complex decisions leverage AI analysis and recommendation systems. *Implication:* Balances immediate governance functionality with our long-term vision but increases implementation complexity. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we clarify the relationship between ElizaOS and ai16z to reduce community confusion about token utility? **Context:** - `ai16z partners have a holding of 100k $ai16z to access some areas, daos.fun just introduced a governance space where you need to hold 1 SOL worth of ai16z to discuss. (Kenk)` - `Kenk explained that ElizaOS is the framework/brand name while ai16z is the token ticker symbol` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Continue with the current branding separation but create comprehensive documentation explaining the relationship between the framework and token. *Implication:* Maintains brand distinction while addressing confusion, but effectiveness depends on users actually reading documentation. b) Unify branding by renaming the token to $eliza to create a more intuitive connection between the framework and its governance token. *Implication:* Creates stronger brand cohesion but involves significant market communication challenges and potential token transition costs. c) Develop a visual ecosystem map and token utility dashboard that clearly illustrates how ai16z integrates with all elizaOS products and services. *Implication:* Provides intuitive understanding without text-heavy documentation but requires design and development resources. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.