# Council Briefing: 2025-08-13 ## 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 elizaOS team is advancing rapidly on v3 architectural improvements while simultaneously addressing social media challenges and debating resource allocation between the core platform and secondary projects. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: ElizaOS v3 Development Strategy **Summary of Topic:** CJ is actively developing v3 with significant architectural improvements, including streamlined directory structure and faster build times, while Shaw has outlined key principles focused on developer experience, production deployment, tool calling, and streaming design. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we balance the architectural shift to v3 with the monthly goal to 'ship production ready elizaOS v2'? **Context:** - `CJ (cjft) is actively developing v3 with significant architectural improvements including streamlined directory structure and faster build times (75ms).` - `Shaw outlined key principles: better developer experience, easier production deployment, improved tool calling, streaming-oriented design, and more opinionated architecture.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Pause v3 development and redirect all resources to completing v2 first. *Implication:* This approach ensures v2 ships on schedule but delays architectural improvements that could benefit future development. b) Continue parallel development but clearly separate teams, with the majority focused on v2 completion. *Implication:* This balances immediate delivery with forward-looking improvements, though introduces coordination overhead. c) Integrate key v3 architectural improvements into v2 before release to gain immediate benefits. *Implication:* This approach improves v2's quality but risks delaying its release due to scope expansion. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** Should tool calling remain an immediate priority given Shaw's identification of it as 'our biggest weakness'? **Context:** - `According to Shaw, the emphasis on character and personality adds noise that makes the system worse at tasks like code agents directly.` - `Shaw outlined first principles for v3: better developer experience, easier production deployment, improved tool calling, streaming-oriented design, and more opinionated architecture.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Yes, immediately prioritize tool calling improvements to close this competitive gap. *Implication:* This addresses a core technical weakness but may divert resources from user-facing features that attract new users. b) Partially address tool calling in v2 with a more comprehensive solution planned for v3. *Implication:* This balanced approach improves critical functionality while maintaining development momentum on other priorities. c) Defer tool calling improvements to v3 and focus v2 on stability and user experience. *Implication:* This maintains the current release schedule but leaves a known technical weakness unaddressed in the near term. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How should the benchmarking initiative be prioritized within our development roadmap? **Context:** - `Team discussing implementation of TAU-bench, AgentBench, and typewriter tests to measure agent performance objectively.` - `Cjft proposed creating a v2/v3 agentic benchmark package to test the framework rather than just the model, creating a GitHub repository (plugin-action-bench) to start this work.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Make benchmarking a blocking requirement for v2 release to ensure quality standards. *Implication:* This ensures measurable quality but introduces a new critical path dependency that could delay release. b) Develop benchmarks in parallel but don't make them a release blocker for v2. *Implication:* This balances quality measurement with maintaining release momentum, though risks shipping with unmeasured performance issues. c) Focus benchmarking efforts on v3 and use v2 primarily to gather qualitative user feedback. *Implication:* This prioritizes user feedback over metrics but may result in performance issues being identified later in the development cycle. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Social Media and Community Strategy **Summary of Topic:** The team is implementing a multi-channel marketing push across Farcaster, LinkedIn, TikTok, and YouTube while working to recover the suspended X/Twitter account, which has been unavailable for approximately two months. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize X/Twitter account recovery versus developing alternative social channels? **Context:** - `The team is dealing with X (Twitter) account suspension issues while maintaining development momentum.` - `The team is implementing a content push across Farcaster, LinkedIn, TikTok, and YouTube while waiting for X account restoration.` - `Community members inquired about the status of the ElizaOS Twitter/X account, which has been unavailable for approximately two months` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Make X/Twitter recovery our top marketing priority, dedicating significant resources to its resolution. *Implication:* This restores our presence on a key crypto platform but risks continued dependence on a single volatile channel. b) Balance recovery efforts with aggressive expansion on alternative platforms to create a more diversified social presence. *Implication:* This approach builds resilience against future platform issues but divides marketing resources across multiple channels. c) Shift focus primarily to alternative platforms and treat X/Twitter as a secondary channel moving forward. *Implication:* This reduces platform risk but may limit reach in the crypto-native community where X/Twitter remains influential. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What role should ClankTank v2 play in our community and token growth strategy? **Context:** - `ClankTank v2: Being developed as a platform for AI agent projects to showcase their work, similar to Shark Tank concept.` - `Q: How does ClankTank v2 provide value for ai16z? A: It's a platform for AI agent projects to showcase their work, potentially bringing visibility to ElizaOS (answered by phetrusarthur✈)` - `Matt2442 proposed requiring Clank Tank participants to airdrop tokens to create a positive feedback loop between token value, submission quality, and platform usage.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Position ClankTank v2 as a central ecosystem initiative with direct token utility integration. *Implication:* This creates stronger token value capture but may limit participation from projects unwilling to integrate with our token. b) Develop ClankTank v2 as primarily a community building and education tool with indirect token benefits. *Implication:* This maximizes community growth and ecosystem development but provides less direct token value accrual. c) Use ClankTank v2 as an acquisition channel to identify promising projects for potential investment or integration. *Implication:* This approach focuses on strategic ecosystem development but requires additional financial resources to execute effectively. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: Resource Allocation and Product Focus **Summary of Topic:** There is ongoing debate about resource allocation between ElizaOS (main project) and Auto.fun (secondary project), with some community members questioning if Auto.fun is underperforming relative to its operational costs. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we address the resource allocation debate between ElizaOS core development and Auto.fun? **Context:** - `Auto.fun Project: Debate about resource allocation between ElizaOS (main project) and Auto.fun (secondary project), with some questioning if Auto.fun is underperforming relative to its operational costs.` - `Q: What happened to the buybacks of $ai16z from autofun trading fees? (asked by 3on_.) A: Unanswered` - `Q: What's the plan for autofun at the moment? (asked by Arceon) A: Unanswered` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Maintain current resource allocation but improve Auto.fun's reporting transparency and tokenomics integration. *Implication:* This preserves the current strategy while addressing communication gaps, but doesn't resolve potential resource inefficiency. b) Shift resources from Auto.fun to core ElizaOS development until v2/v3 ships successfully. *Implication:* This accelerates core platform development but risks stalling momentum for a key user acquisition channel. c) Increase investment in Auto.fun with specific performance targets and enhanced token utility mechanisms. *Implication:* This doubles down on Auto.fun as a growth vector but requires additional resources and clearer KPIs. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we respond to community concerns about token performance and project direction? **Context:** - `Token Performance: Community members expressed concern about the project's direction and token performance during the current market cycle.` - `User '3on_.' suggested developing a new narrative for $ai16z to regain market momentum.` - `Do you have a tokenomics paper about ai16z? (asked by Samir) A: Unanswered` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Develop a comprehensive tokenomics paper with enhanced utility mechanics to address concerns. *Implication:* This provides transparency and a clear value proposition but creates expectations that must be delivered upon. b) Focus communication on technical progress and user growth, positioning token performance as a lagging indicator. *Implication:* This aligns with long-term value creation but may not satisfy short-term price-focused community members. c) Implement token burns or other direct value accrual mechanisms tied to platform usage metrics. *Implication:* This creates immediate token demand but risks regulatory scrutiny and may distract from fundamental product development. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** Should we implement a wallet system with hard spending caps for AI tools as proposed by community members? **Context:** - `Is there a single platform where I can top up a crypto wallet and use it to pay across all AI tools with a hard spending cap? (asked by Dr. Neuro) A: Unanswered` - `Implement wallet system with hard spending caps for AI tools (Mentioned by Dr. Neuro)` - `Implement token burn/redeem mechanism for platform use (Mentioned by Rabbidfly)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize implementation of a wallet system with spending caps as a core platform feature. *Implication:* This addresses a clear user need and potential competitive advantage but requires significant development resources. b) Add this to the v3 roadmap but focus immediate efforts on completing core v2 functionality. *Implication:* This acknowledges the feature's importance while maintaining current development priorities and timelines. c) Create a simplified version focused only on $ai16z spending within our ecosystem as an interim solution. *Implication:* This creates immediate token utility but delivers a less comprehensive solution than the full cross-platform vision. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.