# Council Briefing: 2025-08-25 ## 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 - Significant framework improvements completed this month with the release of comprehensive scenario testing system and migrations from LocalStack to MinIO for persistent storage, positioning elizaOS v2 for imminent production readiness. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: Platform Transition: auto.fun to daos.fun **Summary of Topic:** Community discussions indicate auto.fun is currently under maintenance while a new platform daos.fun is emerging as an alternative for launching AI projects, raising strategic questions about our product roadmap and user migration strategy. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we position daos.fun in relation to auto.fun within our ecosystem? **Context:** - `Jin: 'Any devs planning on making anything on the new daos platform?'` - `User discussions referenced 'daos.fun Token': Identified as 9NyLLGRxpCSKrT8z5RwxDbNdtt71Z6hca8G3Shfvdaos on Solana, created by Shaw` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Position daos.fun as the replacement for auto.fun, with complete migration of users and projects. *Implication:* This approach creates a clean break but risks confusing users and fragmenting the ecosystem if auto.fun still has active projects. b) Position daos.fun as a complementary platform focused specifically on DAO governance for AI projects, while maintaining auto.fun for token launches. *Implication:* This creates product differentiation but requires maintaining two separate platforms and clear messaging about their distinct purposes. c) Merge the functionality of both platforms into a unified solution under the auto.fun brand with expanded DAO capabilities. *Implication:* This maintains brand consistency but requires significant technical integration work and potentially delays the user growth initiative. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What immediate steps should we take to clarify the relationship between these platforms for our community? **Context:** - `Discord user TheRealUltra: 'Is it very difficult to launch an agent via elizaOS as someone who was originally looking for a no code solution?'` - `Dean: 'Fleek.xyz uses elizaOS framework to allow users to no code create agents. It was built into autofun also. Try that route.'` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Release an official statement on Discord and social channels detailing the relationship between platforms and migration timeline. *Implication:* Provides immediate clarity but commits us to a specific direction that may be difficult to adjust later as user needs evolve. b) Host a community AMA with project leads from both platforms to address questions and gather feedback before finalizing strategy. *Implication:* Demonstrates community-first approach and provides valuable insights, but may highlight internal uncertainty if the vision isn't fully aligned. c) Create comprehensive documentation and tutorials showing use cases for each platform and how they integrate with elizaOS. *Implication:* Educates users effectively but requires significant documentation effort that diverts resources from development. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How can we leverage the AI16z token to create synergy between these platforms? **Context:** - `Discussion about 'AI16z Project': Ongoing discussions about this project related to AI agents and tokenization` - `Jin clarified there are no current plans for tokenization of Clank Tank project` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement AI16z staking on both platforms with shared rewards to incentivize cross-platform usage. *Implication:* Creates economic alignment between platforms but increases technical complexity and regulatory considerations. b) Use AI16z exclusively for governance across both platforms, positioning it as the unified control mechanism. *Implication:* Strengthens token utility for governance but may limit other potential token use cases within the ecosystem. c) Create an AI16z liquidity program that provides enhanced features on both platforms based on token holdings. *Implication:* Drives token demand and platform adoption but requires careful economic modeling to ensure sustainability. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Technical Framework Enhancements **Summary of Topic:** Several significant technical improvements have been deployed this month, including a comprehensive scenario testing system, a migration from LocalStack to MinIO for persistent storage, and new tools plugin enabling OAuth-based connections, positioning elizaOS v2 for production readiness. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize the rollout of these technical improvements to maximize user adoption? **Context:** - `Storage Migration: sam-developer reported migrating from LocalStack to MinIO to solve persistence issues, as LocalStack wiped buckets on every container restart` - `Tools Plugin: Stan developed a tools plugin enabling OAuth-based connections/disconnections with multi-connection support per tool and persistent authentication per user` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Focus on developer experience improvements first (documentation, examples, templates) to drive adoption of the new features. *Implication:* Accelerates developer onboarding but delays showcasing user-facing improvements that could attract non-technical users. b) Prioritize user-facing features (OAuth integrations, persistent storage) and showcase them on auto.fun to demonstrate platform stability. *Implication:* Creates visible improvements for end users but risks technical debt if developer tooling isn't properly maintained. c) Implement a phased release focusing first on critical stability improvements (MinIO migration) followed by feature enhancements (OAuth tools). *Implication:* Ensures platform reliability before adding complexity but may slow overall release velocity compared to parallel development. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What additional testing or validation should we conduct before declaring elizaOS v2 production-ready? **Context:** - `Hackathon Feedback: jin reported completing Clank Tank episodes for all hackathon submissions, noting that the event helped identify bugs and improvement areas` - `Plugin Compatibility: Users discovered compatibility issues between certain plugins (like Telegram) and AI models (specifically Local AI/Ollama)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Conduct a closed beta with power users to test all core functionality and integrations in production-like environments. *Implication:* Provides real-world validation but delays public release and may not uncover all edge cases. b) Run extensive automated testing with the new scenario testing system across all supported configurations and plugins. *Implication:* Enables comprehensive technical validation but may miss user experience issues that only emerge in actual usage. c) Launch with a clear beta designation while maintaining v1 as fallback, allowing parallel usage while gathering production feedback. *Implication:* Accelerates feedback collection and real-world validation but creates support complexity and potential user confusion. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: DAO Governance and AI Agency **Summary of Topic:** Discussions about delegation features in Realms.today that could allow voting power to be delegated to AI agents highlight emerging possibilities for AI-enhanced governance, aligning with our core value of Autonomy and the vision for AI-Enhanced Governance in the ecosystem. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** What guardrails should we implement for AI agents participating in DAO governance? **Context:** - `DAO Governance: Discussions about delegation features in Realms.today that could allow voting power to be delegated to AI agents` - `Jin mentioned evaluating options and tradeoffs between different DAO platforms (Realms.today, daos.fun)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement progressive delegation where AI agents start with limited voting power that increases based on governance performance. *Implication:* Creates a merit-based system but requires complex reputation tracking and governance metrics. b) Require human oversight for all AI governance actions with timelocked execution to allow for intervention. *Implication:* Maintains human control but limits true autonomy and introduces governance delays. c) Create specialized governance agents with transparent decision frameworks and clear optimization objectives. *Implication:* Enables specialized expertise but may lead to single-purpose agents rather than general intelligence. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we demonstrate the value of AI agents in governance to accelerate adoption? **Context:** - `Jin mentioned: 'Implement AI agents that can participate in DAO governance'` - `Discussion referenced 'AI16z Project': Ongoing discussions about this project related to AI agents and tokenization` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Create a showcase DAO with mixed human/AI governance and public transparency dashboards tracking performance. *Implication:* Provides a real-world demonstration but requires significant resources to develop and maintain. b) Develop governance simulation tools that allow projects to model AI agent participation before implementing. *Implication:* Enables safe experimentation but may not translate to real-world adoption without proven success cases. c) Implement AI governance advisors that don't vote directly but provide analysis and recommendations to human voters. *Implication:* Creates a lower-risk adoption path but delays full AI autonomy in governance. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.