# Council Briefing: 2025-09-05 ## 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 has made significant progress on technical infrastructure with improved versioning, UI enhancements, and deployment capabilities, while simultaneously addressing token utility concerns from the community and exploring new partnerships. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: Framework vs Token Value Alignment **Summary of Topic:** Community members have expressed concern about the disconnect between elizaOS framework development progress and token performance, raising questions about the relationship between technical excellence and token utility. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we address the apparent disconnect between framework development progress and token value perception? **Context:** - `Several members expressed disappointment about ElizaOS token performance and questioned the relationship between framework development and token value.` - `Community member 3on_ expressed concern about token value despite framework development.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement a direct revenue sharing model that ties framework usage to token value through buybacks and burns. *Implication:* This creates tangible economic value but risks prioritizing token economics over technological development. b) Focus on accelerating auto.fun adoption as the primary token utility driver while continuing framework development. *Implication:* This maintains our strategic roadmap but delays immediate token value recovery. c) Develop comprehensive tokenomics education to help the community understand the long-term relationship between framework adoption and token value. *Implication:* This addresses the knowledge gap but doesn't provide immediate token price recovery. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What metrics should we prioritize tracking and reporting to demonstrate the connection between framework adoption and token value? **Context:** - `Choranão asked: "Is there anywhere where I can check the framework adoption, token buyback/burn, or auto.fun adoption?"` - `Documentation: Create institutional report on framework adoption metrics (Mentioned by: Choranão)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Focus primarily on technical metrics like active agent count, API calls, and developer engagement statistics. *Implication:* This highlights adoption but may not directly correlate with token economics. b) Prioritize financial metrics like volume of transactions processed by elizaOS agents, fees generated, and direct token buybacks. *Implication:* This directly ties to token value but might not capture the full impact of the ecosystem. c) Create a balanced dashboard with both technical and economic metrics, weighted by their correlation to token price over time. *Implication:* This provides the most comprehensive view but requires significant data analysis resources. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** Should we adjust our tier 1 exchange strategy in response to community concerns about token performance? **Context:** - `According to Dubiduba, developer Shaw mentioned on Farcaster they're working on resolving the minting issue` - `Discussion about potential listing on a tier 1 exchange, as Shaw reportedly stated this intention 12 days prior` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Accelerate tier 1 exchange listing efforts even if it requires prioritizing resources away from technical development. *Implication:* This could boost token liquidity and visibility but risks diverting focus from core technological goals. b) Maintain current exchange strategy while more aggressively communicating progress and timelines to the community. *Implication:* This preserves development focus but may not satisfy immediate community concerns about token value. c) Explore strategic partnerships with DeFi protocols to enhance token utility while exchange listing efforts continue in parallel. *Implication:* This creates alternative utility pathways but adds complexity to the roadmap. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: AI Protocol Standardization **Summary of Topic:** The team is engaged in critical discussions about protocol standards for agent communications, with significant implications for the future interoperability and market positioning of elizaOS in the agent ecosystem. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** Which protocol standard should elizaOS prioritize for agent-to-agent and agent-to-plugin communications? **Context:** - `Protocol Standards Discussion: Debate between JSON-RPC, MCP (Model Context Protocol), and ACP (Agent Communication Protocol) for agent-to-agent and agent-to-plugin communications, with JSON-RPC emerging as the preferred standard.` - `Technical: Focus on JSON-RPC standard for agent-to-agent, agent-to-memory, agent-to-tools/plugins, and plugins-to-plugin communications (Mentioned by sayonara)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Standardize on JSON-RPC as it offers the most widespread adoption and compatibility across the ecosystem. *Implication:* This maximizes immediate compatibility but may sacrifice some AI-specific optimizations available in specialized protocols. b) Adopt MCP (Model Context Protocol) to align with emerging AI industry standards and ensure future compatibility. *Implication:* This positions us for future interoperability with major AI systems but may limit current ecosystem compatibility. c) Develop a hybrid approach that uses JSON-RPC as the base layer with protocol adapters for MCP and ACP compatibility. *Implication:* This maximizes flexibility but increases implementation complexity and maintenance overhead. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we integrate x402 protocol for managing API payments using crypto wallets? **Context:** - `Significant discussion about x402, a protocol for managing API payments using crypto wallets instead of API keys. It's currently live on tip.md since June and was developed for a Coinbase hackathon.` - `jin asked: "What is x402 and why is it important?" A: "It's a protocol that eliminates the need for API keys by allowing agents to pay per request using crypto wallets, reducing the tedium of managing API subscriptions."` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Fully integrate x402 as a core protocol within elizaOS, making it the default payment method for agent interactions. *Implication:* This creates a unique selling point for elizaOS but may create adoption friction for traditional developers. b) Implement x402 as an optional plugin while maintaining traditional API key support for broader accessibility. *Implication:* This balances innovation with backward compatibility but may slow crypto payment adoption. c) Partner with the x402 team to co-develop an enhanced protocol specifically optimized for AI agent economics. *Implication:* This positions elizaOS at the forefront of agent payment infrastructure but introduces dependency on external collaboration. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: Developer Experience Enhancement **Summary of Topic:** Recent feedback highlights the need to improve documentation and developer experience to increase framework adoption and compete with alternatives like langgraph that are perceived as having better developer onboarding. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize improving the developer experience to address competitive disadvantages? **Context:** - `A developer mentioned building an "agentic car" called "Fibonacci" using langgraph instead of ElizaOS, citing better documentation and integration experience.` - `Q: Why not elizaOS? (asked by Odilitime) A: For me, I was able to integrate langgraph a bit easier than eliza, tho I have an eliza instance somewhere. I think much of it came down to the docs - it was just a smoother process for me (answered by labmgr)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Launch a comprehensive documentation overhaul initiative focused on interactive tutorials and sample applications. *Implication:* This addresses the immediate documentation gap but requires significant resource allocation away from feature development. b) Develop a simplified abstraction layer above the core framework to reduce integration complexity for new developers. *Implication:* This may attract more developers but risks creating a fragmented API experience between simple and advanced usage. c) Implement a community-driven documentation program with bounties and recognition for contributions. *Implication:* This leverages community resources but may result in inconsistent quality and coverage. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What user interface improvements should we prioritize to demonstrate agent capabilities more effectively? **Context:** - `PR #5865 titled 'feat: Show action called and result in chat UI' by @tcm390 is merged, introducing a comprehensive Real-time Action Execution UI System that provides transparency and visibility into agent action execution.` - `Web UI dashboard exists but is completely undocumented (users don't know how to interact with their agent)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Focus on enhancing the web dashboard with more visualizations and real-time monitoring of agent activities. *Implication:* This improves the experience for existing users but doesn't address the discovery problem for new users. b) Prioritize documentation and discoverability of existing UI features with improved onboarding flows. *Implication:* This addresses immediate user confusion but doesn't add new capabilities to showcase agent functionality. c) Develop a new showcase interface specifically designed to demonstrate the comparative advantages of elizaOS agents. *Implication:* This helps with marketing and differentiation but diverts resources from improving the core product experience. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.