# Council Briefing: 2025-09-20 ## 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 roadmap for elizaOS 2.0 was unveiled featuring a full Browser SDK for serverless agent functionality, React-first developer experience, and core platform upgrades, signaling a major shift toward web-first autonomous agents. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: Auto.fun Operational Status **Summary of Topic:** The auto.fun platform, a critical component of our monthly goal to attract new users, has been reported down for several weeks, creating a significant obstacle to user acquisition and requiring immediate strategic attention. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize auto.fun restoration in relation to the elizaOS v2 development roadmap? **Context:** - `Q: What's up with auto.fun? Can't access the site for some time. (asked by Toni)` - `A: been down for a few weeks from what i been able to gather... (answered by DorianD)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Establish a dedicated emergency team to restore auto.fun immediately, even if it delays elizaOS v2 development. *Implication:* Prioritizes short-term user acquisition at the expense of longer-term technological advancement. b) Continue focusing primarily on elizaOS v2 development while assigning minimal resources to maintain auto.fun's basic functionality. *Implication:* Maintains technical momentum but risks user disengagement during the transition period. c) Rebuild auto.fun directly on the new elizaOS v2 architecture as a showcase application, accepting temporary downtime. *Implication:* Creates a seamless technical foundation but extends the platform's unavailability period. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What alternative user acquisition strategies should we implement while auto.fun is down? **Context:** - `Clank Tank v2: Jin's social agents live streaming project received updates including new set, animations, and website` - `Continue development of "clanktank" social agents live streaming project (Mentioned by satsbased)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Accelerate Jin's Clank Tank v2 development as an alternative showcase for elizaOS's agent capabilities. *Implication:* Leverages existing community projects to maintain momentum while the main platform is being restored. b) Launch a developer-focused campaign highlighting the upcoming Browser SDK to attract technical users. *Implication:* Shifts target audience temporarily from end-users to developers who can build on our platform. c) Create temporary standalone agent demonstrations that don't require the full auto.fun infrastructure. *Implication:* Provides immediate user engagement options while maintaining focus on the core platform restoration. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Blockchain-AI Integration Strategy **Summary of Topic:** The team is at a strategic crossroads between building AI-blockchain plugins versus user-facing applications, with both the ERC-8004 collaboration with Ethereum Foundation and the growing x402 implementation presenting compelling but different integration paths. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** Should we prioritize the ERC-8004 Ethereum Foundation collaboration or accelerate x402 implementation? **Context:** - `ERC-8004 Collaboration: Potential partnership with Ethereum Foundation to create a reference implementation game` - `x402 Implementation: Growing adoption across platforms (Solana, Firecrawl, Vercel, Google) with thousands of transactions` - `Strategic Debate: Team discussing value of building plugins versus creating user-facing applications` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize the ERC-8004 Ethereum Foundation collaboration to establish elizaOS as the standard for on-chain agent trust. *Implication:* Strengthens institutional relationships and potentially positions elizaOS as the reference implementation for agent identity standards. b) Focus on x402 implementation to capitalize on its growing momentum across multiple platforms and transaction volume. *Implication:* Aligns with existing adoption trends and enables immediate revenue-generating opportunities through agent-to-agent payments. c) Pursue both paths simultaneously with separate teams to ensure elizaOS maintains leadership across multiple blockchain ecosystems. *Implication:* Maximizes market coverage but dilutes resources and may lead to integration inconsistencies across implementations. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we balance building plugins versus user-facing applications in our blockchain integration strategy? **Context:** - `Strategic Debate: Team discussing value of building plugins versus creating user-facing applications` - `Implement x402 plugin to reduce API key management pain points (Mentioned by jin)` - `Create ERC-8004 based game with Ethereum Foundation as reference implementation (Mentioned by shaw)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize user-facing applications like the ERC-8004 game to demonstrate practical utility and drive adoption. *Implication:* Creates tangible showcases that attract users but may slow development of the underlying infrastructure. b) Focus on building robust plugins (like x402) that enable developers to create their own blockchain-integrated applications. *Implication:* Strengthens the platform's technical foundation but relies on third-party developers to create compelling user experiences. c) Adopt an integrated approach where each plugin is accompanied by a reference application demonstrating its capabilities. *Implication:* Balances infrastructure development with user experience but increases the scope of each integration project. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: ElizaOS 2.0 Technical Architecture **Summary of Topic:** The roadmap for elizaOS 2.0 revealed a major shift toward browser-first development with in-browser agent functionality, React-first components, and a unified API, requiring strategic decisions about resource allocation and feature prioritization. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we sequence the elizaOS 2.0 component releases to maximize developer adoption and minimize disruption? **Context:** - `Browser SDK Development: Full in-browser agent functionality without persistent servers, supporting local LLMs, MetaMask, and serverless operations` - `React-First Developer Experience: React components as plugins with planned hooks for easier integration` - `Core Platform Upgrades: Unified ElizaOS Class + Core API, runtime improvements, and message bus simplification` - `Timeline: Browser SDK and core API upgrades scheduled for Sep-Oct 2025, with additional features rolling out through end of 2025` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Release the core API upgrades first, followed by the Browser SDK and finally the React components. *Implication:* Prioritizes platform stability but delays delivering the most visible improvements to developers. b) Launch the Browser SDK as the flagship feature, followed by React components and core API upgrades. *Implication:* Creates immediate developer excitement but may require subsequent breaking changes as the underlying API evolves. c) Release a comprehensive beta with all components together after thorough integration testing. *Implication:* Ensures a cohesive developer experience but extends the timeline before any improvements reach developers. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** How should we address the security concerns highlighted by the recent wallet drain incident in our v2 architecture? **Context:** - `Security Concerns: Wallet drain incident reported, likely from npm supply chain attack` - `Perform security sweep after wallet drain incident (Mentioned by shaw)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement comprehensive supply chain security measures including dependency pinning, integrity verification, and CI/CD security gates. *Implication:* Prioritizes security but may introduce friction in the development process and slow down releases. b) Develop a dedicated secure wallet interface with isolated permission scopes and multi-signature confirmation for critical operations. *Implication:* Addresses the specific vulnerability but adds complexity to the user experience for blockchain operations. c) Shift to a TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) based architecture for all sensitive operations, leveraging the ongoing Eigen Cloud TEE work. *Implication:* Provides robust security guarantees but significantly increases technical complexity and resource requirements. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.