# Council Briefing: 2025-08-19 ## 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 Accelerator Demo Day for Friday has been announced, showcasing 10 projects after a 7-week program, while core developers debate whether to refactor or rebuild the Eliza Cloud Backend. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: Accelerator Program Launch **Summary of Topic:** The upcoming elizaOS Accelerator Demo Day presents a strategic opportunity to showcase ecosystem growth with 10 projects completing a 7-week accelerator program, marking a significant milestone in the platform's evolution. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we strategically position the Accelerator Demo Day in relation to our auto.fun user acquisition goals? **Context:** - `Kenk shared the registration link for the elizaOS Accelerator Demo Day after Ben Schiller's original post was removed` - `Clarified as separate from the "Clank Tank show"` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Emphasize investment opportunities to attract crypto-native users. *Implication:* This approach prioritizes financial/investment angles which may narrow our audience to crypto investors rather than broader developer and user communities. b) Highlight technical innovations and integrations with auto.fun to attract developers. *Implication:* This technical-first approach could strengthen our developer ecosystem but might not immediately translate to end-user growth on auto.fun. c) Showcase real-world agent applications and 24/7 activities across all projects. *Implication:* This demonstration-focused approach aligns directly with our monthly goal of showcasing 24/7 agent activity to attract users. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What follow-up program should we implement after the Accelerator Demo Day to maintain momentum? **Context:** - `10 projects will be showcased after a 7-week accelerator program` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Launch a grant program focused on projects that enhance agent activity on auto.fun. *Implication:* This directly supports our monthly goal of showcasing 24/7 agent activity but requires financial resources. b) Create a permanent incubator with technical mentorship from core developers. *Implication:* This builds long-term ecosystem value but diverts developer resources from shipping elizaOS v2. c) Implement a community voting system for project support using $AI16Z tokens. *Implication:* This increases token utility and community engagement but may prioritize popularity over technical merit. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How should successful accelerator projects be integrated into the official elizaOS ecosystem? **Context:** - `Discussion about $AI16Z token utility, particularly regarding burning tokens for voting participation` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Formal verification process with token burning requirements for official endorsement. *Implication:* This creates a high-quality standard but could limit ecosystem growth due to financial barriers. b) Tiered integration system based on technical quality and alignment with elizaOS values. *Implication:* This balanced approach maintains quality standards while providing clear progression paths for projects. c) Open marketplace with minimal verification, focusing on maximizing quantity of options. *Implication:* This maximizes growth but may dilute quality and brand perception of the elizaOS ecosystem. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Eliza Cloud Backend Strategy **Summary of Topic:** A fundamental architectural debate has emerged regarding whether to refactor the existing Eliza Cloud Backend or implement a fresh rebuild, highlighting tensions between maintaining continuity and addressing technical debt. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** What approach should we take with the Eliza Cloud Backend: refactor or rebuild? **Context:** - `Sam-developer advocated for a fresh implementation due to the current codebase's rigidity, security issues, and maintenance challenges` - `Shaw questioned this approach, suggesting focus should remain on core functionality of issuing API tokens` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Focused refactoring targeting only core API token functionality. *Implication:* This minimalist approach delivers essential functionality quickly but may leave underlying architectural issues unresolved. b) Complete rebuild with modern architecture to address security and maintainability. *Implication:* This comprehensive approach solves fundamental issues but delays delivery and risks compatibility breaks. c) Hybrid approach: maintain current system while incrementally building replacement modules. *Implication:* This balanced approach maintains service continuity while gradually addressing technical debt, though requiring more coordination. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How does the Cloud Backend decision impact our timeline for shipping production-ready elizaOS v2? **Context:** - `No consensus reached yet` - `Current monthly directive: Stabilize and attract new users to auto.fun by showcasing 24/7 agent activity (streaming, trading, shitposting), ship production ready elizaOS v2.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize minimal viable backend to maintain v2 launch schedule. *Implication:* This schedule-focused approach ensures timely release but may require significant post-launch updates. b) Delay v2 launch to ensure backend robustness and security. *Implication:* This quality-focused approach delivers a more stable product but misses near-term momentum opportunities. c) Decouple backend development from v2 release by implementing feature flags. *Implication:* This modular approach allows independent progress but increases architectural complexity. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** What technical criteria should govern our decision-making for backend architecture? **Context:** - `Current codebase's rigidity, security issues, and maintenance challenges` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize security and regulatory compliance above all other considerations. *Implication:* This security-first approach minimizes organizational risk but may constrain flexibility and speed. b) Balance maintainability, performance, and developer experience. *Implication:* This balanced approach optimizes for long-term sustainability but requires more nuanced decision-making. c) Focus on scalability and integration capabilities with Web3 infrastructure. *Implication:* This growth-oriented approach aligns with future expansion but may increase initial complexity. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: $AI16Z Token Utility Enhancement **Summary of Topic:** Community discussions reveal growing interest in expanded $AI16Z token utility, particularly around governance participation through token burning mechanisms and investment opportunities, which could drive engagement and value capture. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we implement token burning mechanisms to enhance $AI16Z utility? **Context:** - `Discussion about $AI16Z token utility, particularly regarding burning tokens for voting participation` - `A community member asked about the best exchange to buy more $AI16Z tokens, and another asked if burning $AI16Z would be required for voting participation` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement a linear burning model where votes require direct token burns. *Implication:* This simple model creates clear deflationary pressure but may exclude smaller token holders from governance. b) Develop a quadratic voting system with partial burns to balance participation. *Implication:* This balanced approach increases inclusivity but adds implementation complexity and potential gaming vectors. c) Create a delegated burning system where users can pool tokens for collective votes. *Implication:* This community-oriented approach enables broader participation but may lead to vote concentration. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What investment mechanisms should we enable for $AI16Z holders in relation to accelerator projects? **Context:** - `So basically, we will get to burn $Ai16z to participate in voting, and hopefully invest, is that the general idea? (asked by Spyhard)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Enable direct token swaps between $AI16Z and accelerator project tokens. *Implication:* This direct approach simplifies investment but may create valuation and liquidity challenges for new projects. b) Implement a bonding curve mechanism for accelerator project investments. *Implication:* This market-oriented approach creates predictable pricing but requires more complex smart contract development. c) Create investment pools that require $AI16Z staking for participation rights. *Implication:* This staking-based approach increases token utility without permanent burns but adds custody complexity. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How should we balance token utility between auto.fun and governance participation? **Context:** - `Monthly Goal: Stabilize and attract new users to auto.fun by showcasing 24/7 agent activity` - `Partnership with BNV mentioned in a shared tweet` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize auto.fun integration with exclusive features for token holders. *Implication:* This product-focused approach drives user acquisition but may limit governance participation. b) Implement dual utility with separate allocation for governance and platform usage. *Implication:* This balanced approach serves both purposes but increases system complexity. c) Create a unified token economy where platform usage generates governance rights. *Implication:* This integrated approach aligns incentives but may initially limit governance to active platform users. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.