# Council Briefing: 2025-07-15 ## 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 - Major development milestone achieved with the implementation of action chaining and form plugin features, while the suspended Twitter/X account continues to impede external visibility and user acquisition efforts. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: Agent Capability Expansion **Summary of Topic:** Core agent functionality has been significantly enhanced with new action chaining, form plugin, and image generation capabilities that represent critical foundations for V2 readiness, but integration issues across platforms persist. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize the newly added agent capabilities (action chaining, forms, image generation) to maximize user attraction to auto.fun? **Context:** - `PR #5436 adds action chaining: 'Action state is stored on the State object which is passed down to actions. Action return values are stored in the action state for the run.'` - `PR #5487: 'This PR adds a form plugin. The goal of this plugin is to be a dependent service which other plugins can use to build forms on.'` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Focus on developing shitposting templates that leverage image generation and action chaining for viral content creation on auto.fun. *Implication:* Emphasizing viral content generation could drive rapid user growth but may not showcase the full technical potential of the framework. b) Prioritize trading agent capabilities by utilizing action chaining to enable multi-step market analysis and decision making. *Implication:* Focusing on trading functionality may attract serious investors but could slow broader adoption among creative users. c) Create showcase demos that combine all three capabilities into interactive experiences for content creators and developers. *Implication:* A balanced approach may demonstrate the technical versatility of the platform but could dilute the impact in any single domain. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What measures should we implement to address the ongoing platform integration challenges, particularly with Windows compatibility and cross-agent communication? **Context:** - `Issue #5584 titled '[via-discord] Forwarding Messages Between Agents Without Polling — Need Help with Agent-to-Agent Communication' by @wtfsayo is OPEN` - `Users encountered errors connecting to Ollama despite models being locally available, with community members suggesting endpoint configuration fixes.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Establish a dedicated cross-platform compatibility team to systematically address Windows issues and standardize plugin behavior. *Implication:* Resource-intensive approach that may slow feature development but would establish a stronger technical foundation. b) Implement a standardized agent communication protocol that enables seamless message passing and knowledge sharing between specialized agents. *Implication:* Focusing on agent interoperability could accelerate ecosystem development but might delay addressing platform-specific issues. c) Develop comprehensive automated testing across all supported platforms with a focus on user-reported integration pain points. *Implication:* Testing-focused approach may improve stability but could draw resources away from new capabilities development. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How can we ensure our newly implemented agent capabilities are properly documented and accessible to both technical and non-technical users? **Context:** - `PR #5401: 'This PR implements a comprehensive documentation overhaul addressing issue #5234, creating a two-track documentation system that serves both simple users ("vibecoders") and developers with distinct, focused experiences.'` - `Documentation Needs: 'Provide documentation for degenai' and 'Document response time benchmarks' (Mentioned in daily reports)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Create agent templates that demonstrate each capability with minimal configuration for non-technical users, while providing advanced API documentation for developers. *Implication:* Dual-track approach could broaden the user base but requires maintaining separate documentation streams. b) Leverage the newly implemented AI agents to automatically generate and maintain documentation, ensuring consistency across the expanding feature set. *Implication:* Self-documenting approach aligns with the project's autonomy vision but may initially produce less polished documentation. c) Develop interactive tutorials embedded in the GUI that guide users through feature implementation, with progressive disclosure of technical details. *Implication:* In-product educational approach could improve retention but requires significant UI/UX development resources. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: External Visibility Strategy **Summary of Topic:** The prolonged Twitter/X account suspension is severely hampering community growth and project visibility, warranting investigation of alternative social exposure strategies while the resolution is pending. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** Given the continued X/Twitter account suspension, how should we adapt our social media strategy to maintain growth momentum? **Context:** - `Kenk: 'The status is still the same, there is a resolution in sight but awaiting X to execute or action it'` - `HodlHusky: 'How did pump.fun get their X back in 4 hours and yall cant in over a month?'` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Immediately pivot to alternative platforms (Discord, Telegram, Farcaster) with increased content production to compensate for X/Twitter loss. *Implication:* Platform diversification reduces single-point-of-failure risk but divides community attention and resources. b) Create a temporary X/Twitter presence under a different brand name that cross-promotes elizaOS while continuing resolution efforts. *Implication:* Maintaining X/Twitter presence preserves the audience but risks splitting brand identity and potential policy violations. c) Focus on direct-to-developer outreach through technical forums, GitHub, and project showcases rather than social media engagement. *Implication:* Technical-first approach may build a more qualified user base but could slow overall adoption rates. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we enhance the auto.fun platform to better showcase agent capabilities while X/Twitter visibility is limited? **Context:** - `Kenk: 'autofun incubator [is an] accelerator for agent teams looking to launch agents'` - `Monthly Goal: 'Stabilize and attract new users to auto.fun by showcasing 24/7 agent activity (streaming, trading, shitposting)'` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement public agent activity leaderboards and showcases directly on auto.fun to highlight successful implementations. *Implication:* Platform-centric approach reduces reliance on external channels but requires significant auto.fun UI development. b) Launch a formal incubator program with incentives for developers to create and maintain high-profile agents on the platform. *Implication:* Incentivizing quality contributions could accelerate ecosystem development but represents a financial investment. c) Create automated, regular content digests of agent activities that can be easily shared across multiple platforms by community members. *Implication:* Community-driven amplification strategy could multiply reach beyond official channels but sacrifices message control. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: Token Ecosystem Clarification **Summary of Topic:** Community confusion around the dual token system ($ai16z and $degenai) and ongoing governance role questions require strategic communication efforts to align stakeholder understanding. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we clarify the relationship and value proposition between $ai16z and $degenai tokens to reduce community confusion? **Context:** - `Kenk: '$ai16z is the token behind the elizaOS agentic framework, Spartan is a product incubated by Eliza Labs that has the ticker $degenai'` - `User ZzzzHodl requested links to degenai documentation after asking about the difference between tokens` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Create a comprehensive token ecosystem explainer with clear value flow diagrams and use cases for each token. *Implication:* Educational approach may clarify positioning but doesn't address potential token redundancy perceptions. b) Develop specific product features that demonstrate unique utility for each token, with clear differentiation between framework governance and product usage. *Implication:* Utility-first approach could increase token demand but requires significant development resources. c) Merge the token strategies to simplify the ecosystem and reduce confusion, phasing out one token in favor of consolidation. *Implication:* Simplification could improve messaging clarity but risks disrupting existing token holders and communities. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What governance model should we implement to balance community engagement with technical development for the token ecosystem? **Context:** - `Users discussed the equivalence between Hoplite role (granted for holding 1M $degenai) and Partners role (granted for holding 100k $ai16z).` - `DorianD proposed 'a comprehensive system using Solana Token 2022 (T22) for Eliza agents, enabling: User identity registration with web2/3 verification, Agent memory sharing with authorization protocols'` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement a hybrid model where technical development decisions remain centralized while creating tokenized voting for feature prioritization and ecosystem funding. *Implication:* Balanced approach maintains development control while providing meaningful community input mechanisms. b) Develop full on-chain governance for both tokens with differentiated voting powers and responsibilities across the ecosystem. *Implication:* Decentralized approach aligns with DAO vision but could slow decision-making and technical development. c) Focus on token utility rather than governance, positioning tokens primarily as access mechanisms to progressively more powerful agent capabilities. *Implication:* Utility-focused strategy could drive token demand through product value rather than governance rights. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How should we integrate token utility with the new agent capabilities (action chaining, forms, etc.) to drive value to token holders? **Context:** - `PR #5436: 'This PR adds action chaining. Action state is stored on the State object which is passed down to actions. Action return values are stored in the action state for the run.'` - `User Dai00 asked: 'Do you guys have any plans to make Spartan a personal trading bot in the future?'` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement tiered access to advanced capabilities like action chaining and form building based on token holdings. *Implication:* Direct utility model creates clear token value proposition but may limit adoption of new features. b) Develop a token-based revenue sharing model where creators of popular agents receive rewards proportional to usage and features utilized. *Implication:* Creator economy approach could drive both token demand and ecosystem development but adds implementation complexity. c) Create a token-gated marketplace for premium agent templates, plugins, and capabilities that developers can monetize. *Implication:* Marketplace strategy stimulates ecosystem development while creating token-denominated commerce opportunities. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.