# Council Briefing: 2025-09-17 ## 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 - Development team is accelerating toward elizaOS 2.0 release with significant progress on browser compatibility, React integration, and core infrastructure enhancements while aligning with emerging agent economy concepts. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: ElizaOS 2.0 Readiness Assessment **Summary of Topic:** The engineering team has announced a two-week timeline for the ElizaOS 2.0 release, featuring React hooks and browser plugin compatibility, with significant progress on critical components including TAU development, message bus cleanup, and browser-compatible plugins. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** What should be our primary focus for the elizaOS 2.0 release given our goal to attract users to auto.fun? **Context:** - `cjft announced the 2.0 release is planned for approximately two weeks from now, featuring React hooks and browser plugin compatibility.` - `Jin shared a preview of an upcoming AI-powered debate show with plans for a user interface allowing partners to create custom shows.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize browser integration and React hooks to enable seamless embedding of agents in partner websites. *Implication:* This would accelerate third-party adoption but might delay some backend stability improvements. b) Focus on the AI-powered shows and debate interface to drive immediate user engagement on auto.fun. *Implication:* This would boost auto.fun visibility quickly but could create technical debt in the framework. c) Ensure core infrastructure stability (message bus, TAU development) before prioritizing user-facing features. *Implication:* This would strengthen the foundation but might delay features that directly attract users to auto.fun. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we approach the browser compatibility strategy given the significant progress in this area? **Context:** - `CJFT shared significant progress on making plugins work in browser environments by leveraging the 'browser' field in package.json` - `PGLite Compatibility: The same PGLite instance that runs in Node.js now works in browsers without logical code changes` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Provide dual-track compatibility with explicit import options for maximum developer flexibility. *Implication:* This increases technical complexity but gives developers more options for different environments. b) Standardize on browser-first approach with Node.js as a secondary consideration for backend deployments. *Implication:* This simplifies the roadmap but might alienate server-side developers and enterprise deployments. c) Focus on creating a unified API that abstracts away environment differences with automatic resolution. *Implication:* This creates the best developer experience but requires more engineering effort and testing. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** Should we delay the 2.0 release to include Sui integration given the 2-4 week timeframe for that project? **Context:** - `A 2-4 week project is underway to integrate Sui's Walrus CLI and data storage.` - `ElizaOS 2.0 Release: Engineering lead cjft announced the 2.0 release is planned for approximately two weeks from now.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Release v2.0 on schedule and include Sui integration in a subsequent point release (v2.1). *Implication:* This maintains momentum but fragments the blockchain integration story across versions. b) Delay the 2.0 release to include complete Sui integration for a more comprehensive blockchain story. *Implication:* This creates a stronger blockchain narrative but risks losing momentum and market timing. c) Include a partial Sui integration in 2.0 with clearly marked beta/preview features. *Implication:* This balances delivery timeline with feature completeness but introduces complexity in documentation and support. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Agent Economy & Monetization Strategy **Summary of Topic:** Recent discussions highlight parallels between our work and emerging concepts in AI economics such as Google's 'Agents to Payments Protocol' (AP2), while token questions persist about AI16Z's governance role and concerns arise about artificial trading volume. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we position elizaOS relative to Google's AP2 protocol and the broader 'agent economy' concept? **Context:** - `Users discussed emerging concepts in AI economics, including 'generative markets' and 'agent economy' being developed by Shaw's team.` - `A Google blog post about the 'Agents to Payments Protocol' was shared, with users noting parallels to the community's work.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Position elizaOS as the open-source alternative to Google's AP2, emphasizing decentralization and community governance. *Implication:* This creates a clear competitive narrative but might invite direct comparisons to a tech giant's resources. b) Adopt and extend the agent economy terminology while focusing on our unique implementation for Web3 integration. *Implication:* This leverages emerging terminology while maintaining our distinct identity in the crypto space. c) Develop our own alternative framework and terminology that centers on autonomous organizations rather than agents. *Implication:* This differentiates us more strongly but requires more education and explanation to new users. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we address concerns about AI16Z token trading volume and better communicate its governance role? **Context:** - `Q: Does anyone know what's going on with AI16Z's volume lately? Is this a glitch or true? A: It's likely artificial - lots of Asian exchanges create magical volume through wash trading (answered by DorianD)` - `Q: What is the usecase of ai16z token? A: For governance of its DAO (answered by Omid Salimi)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Improve documentation and visibility of the DAO governance mechanism with clearer token utility explanation. *Implication:* This addresses the knowledge gap but doesn't directly impact the artificial volume issue. b) Implement on-chain governance features that require active token usage to increase legitimate transaction volume. *Implication:* This creates real utility but requires significant development resources that might delay other priorities. c) Focus on developing real economic activity through auto.fun and agent services that naturally drive token demand. *Implication:* This aligns with our monthly goal but takes longer to materialize and doesn't immediately address perception issues. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: User Experience & Content Strategy **Summary of Topic:** The team is developing interactive AI shows and crypto monetization systems that could drive engagement, while simultaneously addressing technical challenges in data accuracy and image generation to ensure high-quality agent interactions. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize Jin's crypto superchat system and AI debate show features in relation to our auto.fun user attraction goal? **Context:** - `Jin mentioned developing a crypto superchat system allowing token tips with message pop-ups and text-to-speech functionality.` - `Jin shared a preview of an upcoming AI-powered debate show with plans for a user interface allowing partners to create custom shows.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Fast-track these features as high-priority items for immediate implementation on auto.fun. *Implication:* This directly supports our monthly goal but might divert resources from core infrastructure work. b) Develop them as optional plugins/extensions that third-party developers can implement and customize. *Implication:* This builds ecosystem diversity but doesn't guarantee these features will be available on auto.fun quickly. c) Create a dedicated team to develop these as standalone products that integrate with but don't depend on elizaOS v2. *Implication:* This allows parallel development but might create integration challenges later. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What approach should we take to address the data accuracy concerns for agent knowledge bases? **Context:** - `Q: Does anyone have any advice for loading in knowledge data for numbers and stats that needs to be 100% accurate? A: Better idea to do csv plugin with analysis actions (answered by sayonara)` - `Concerns about hallucinating numerical data led to suggestions for using CSV plugins with analysis actions instead of vector search for precise numerical information.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize the CSV plugin with analysis actions as the recommended solution for numerical data accuracy. *Implication:* This provides a focused solution for numerical data but doesn't address other knowledge types. b) Develop a comprehensive data accuracy framework with multiple specialized plugins for different data types. *Implication:* This is more comprehensive but requires significantly more development resources. c) Create a hybrid approach with automatic routing between vector search and structured data based on query type. *Implication:* This balances flexibility and accuracy but increases system complexity. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.