# Council Briefing: 2025-07-20 ## 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 - The team has successfully migrated the core framework architecture from EventEmitter to Bun's native EventTarget API while addressing critical token governance concerns within the community. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: Technical Infrastructure Evolution **Summary of Topic:** The elizaOS development team continues to make significant architecture improvements for v2, including the migration to Bun's native EventTarget API, service standardization, and enhanced documentation, though Windows compatibility remains challenging. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we balance backward compatibility with architectural modernization in the upcoming v2 release? **Context:** - `wtfsayo: Drove a significant migration from EventEmitter to Bun's native EventTarget API in elizaos/eliza via PR #5609, demonstrating a focus on core architectural improvements and Bun compatibility` - `wtfsayo: Focused on enhancing core system capabilities, notably merging a significant feature in elizaos/eliza#5629 that improved ModuleLoader with local-first guarantees` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize architectural modernization with migration tools for users *Implication:* Faster technical evolution but potential fragmentation of the community between v1 and v2 adopters. b) Maintain dual-support with compatibility layers until adoption reaches critical mass *Implication:* Slower technical evolution but smoother transition for the community and better stability. c) Focus modernization on new features only while keeping core APIs stable *Implication:* Balanced approach that may create technical debt but preserves user experience. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What approach should we take to address the persistent Windows compatibility issues? **Context:** - `ai16z-demirix: Focused on significant development work, opening two substantial PRs: elizaos/eliza#5634, which makes API keys optional for `npx elizaos create`, and elizaos/eliza#5633, which targets the project directory for `.elizadb`.` - `linear: Focused on identifying and documenting potential issues within the `elizaos` project, creating five new issues including two related to Windows path handling and directory creation (elizaos/eliza#5619, elizaos/eliza#5616).` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Invest in dedicated Windows testing infrastructure with automation *Implication:* Higher short-term cost but better cross-platform reliability long-term. b) Partner with Microsoft or Windows-focused contributors for specialized expertise *Implication:* Leverages external expertise but creates potential governance and control challenges. c) Prioritize path normalization and filesystem abstractions across the codebase *Implication:* Addresses root cause systematically but requires significant refactoring effort. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How should we leverage the new standardized service interfaces to improve the plugin ecosystem? **Context:** - `A new system for service types and standardized interfaces was introduced, featuring a `getServicesByType()` method to improve modularity and allow plugins to depend on abstract services ([#5565]).` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Create an official plugin marketplace with verified, type-safe plugins *Implication:* Increases quality and security but puts additional maintenance burden on core team. b) Develop template plugins that showcase best practices for each service type *Implication:* Educates developers and improves ecosystem quality without centralized control. c) Implement automatic service discovery and dependency resolution for plugins *Implication:* Enhances user experience but increases complexity of the core system. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Token Governance & Community Concerns **Summary of Topic:** The community has raised significant concerns about the AI16Z token's mint authority, contract transparency, and centralized control, creating tension between maintaining development flexibility and building trust. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we address the community concerns regarding the mint authority for AI16Z tokens? **Context:** - `Mint Authority Issues: Significant discussion about the mint authority for AI16Z tokens, with concerns about whether it can be revoked and who controls it. Some users expressed worry about centralized control. [discussion]` - `Q: Why is the mint authority not revoked for AI16Z tokens? A: According to DorianD, if the smart contract requires a vote to revoke it and there's no voting infrastructure, it may not be possible to revoke it currently.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement on-chain governance to manage mint authority via community vote *Implication:* Decentralizes control but may slow down operational flexibility during early stages. b) Time-lock the mint authority with increasing thresholds for usage over time *Implication:* Balances flexibility and trust by creating a predictable path to decentralization. c) Create a multi-sig arrangement with trusted community members and team *Implication:* Maintains operational speed while distributing authority, but doesn't fully decentralize control. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** Should we prioritize making the AI16Z contract open-source despite potential competitive disadvantages? **Context:** - `Contract Transparency: Questions were raised about whether the AI16Z contract is open source, with DorianD indicating that the contracts aren't currently open source. [discussion]` - `Q: Is the AI16Z contract open source? A: DorianD indicated the contracts aren't open source.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Fully open-source all contracts immediately for maximum transparency *Implication:* Builds community trust but potentially exposes strategic elements to competitors. b) Publish contract audit reports while keeping implementation details private *Implication:* Balances security verification with competitive protection of proprietary techniques. c) Create a transition plan to open-source contracts at specific project milestones *Implication:* Maintains short-term flexibility while committing to long-term transparency. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How should we evolve the protocol-level tokenomics to better align with our decentralization values? **Context:** - `Q: What's the focus now that V2 is rolled out? A: Kenk stated they're focusing on protocol-level tokenomics now that V2 is rolled out and their ecosystem is somewhat established.` - `Protocol-Level Tokenomics: The team is now focusing on developing protocol-level tokenomics following the successful V2 rollout. [discussion]` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement fee-sharing mechanisms that distribute value to token holders *Implication:* Creates direct economic alignment but potentially reduces operational capital. b) Develop protocol-owned liquidity mechanisms to reduce volatility *Implication:* Provides stability for adoption but may limit upside potential for early token holders. c) Create token-gated access to premium features and API capabilities *Implication:* Drives utility value but might create barriers to adoption for new users. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: Platform Growth & Marketing Strategy **Summary of Topic:** With X (Twitter) accounts still suspended and marketing strategy debates ongoing, the team needs to determine how to effectively showcase agent capabilities and attract users to auto.fun despite social media limitations. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** What should be our primary user acquisition strategy while our X (Twitter) accounts remain suspended? **Context:** - `X (Twitter) Account Status: The team's X account remains suspended, but Kenk reported that discussions with X are "moving in the right direction" with an encouraging reply received that week. [discussion]` - `Q: Is there any progress with unban of Eliza and Shawn accounts on X? A: Kenk confirmed discussions with X are moving in the right direction, with an encouraging reply received that week, though X's response time is slow.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Pivot to alternative platforms like Farcaster, Bluesky, and Discord communities *Implication:* Diversifies social presence but may fragment attention and resources. b) Focus on direct B2D (business-to-developer) outreach and GitHub engagement *Implication:* Targets core technical users but may slow mainstream adoption curves. c) Create spectacular agent demos that generate organic sharing across platforms *Implication:* Leverages product quality as marketing but requires significant creative resources. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we balance product development with marketing efforts in our current stage? **Context:** - `Marketing Strategy: Discussion about the team's marketing approach, with some users suggesting that product quality will drive adoption more than marketing efforts. [discussion]` - `Q: What is the team doing about marketing? A: According to traderlv, the team doesn't need much marketing as they already have name recognition, and the product quality will drive adoption.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Double down on product quality with minimal marketing until v2 is fully stable *Implication:* Ensures solid foundation but may miss market timing opportunities. b) Implement a balanced 70/30 approach (product/marketing) with regular reassessment *Implication:* Maintains momentum while slowly building awareness and community. c) Launch targeted marketing campaigns focused specifically on auto.fun *Implication:* Drives immediate attention to our key product but may set expectations before full readiness. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** What concrete 24/7 agent showcases should we prioritize to attract users to auto.fun? **Context:** - `Current focus: Stabilize and attract new users to auto.fun by showcasing 24/7 agent activity (streaming, trading, shitposting), ship production ready elizaOS v2.` - `Ollama Integration: A user named starlord has created a GitHub branch to implement Ollama integration for the plugin-knowledge component. The implementation partially works but has some unresolved issues.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Trading agents with transparent performance history and low barrier to entry *Implication:* Appeals to crypto-native users but requires rigorous risk management. b) Content creation agents that generate daily insights across multiple platforms *Implication:* Showcases AI capabilities broadly but may raise quality control challenges. c) Interactive agents that respond to user queries and perform tasks in real-time *Implication:* Creates engaging experiences but requires more complex infrastructure and moderation. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.