# Council Briefing: 2025-09-24 ## 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 - A major token migration from $ai16z to $ElizaOS has been announced, creating significant uncertainty among community members while highlighting technical dependency issues in the codebase. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: Token Migration Strategy **Summary of Topic:** The announcement of a token migration from $ai16z to $ElizaOS has created uncertainty within the community, particularly regarding the mechanics, timing, and implications for token holders on centralized exchanges. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we structure the communication strategy for the token migration to minimize uncertainty and maximize retention? **Context:** - `Kenk mentioned they'll be sharing more details and a FAQ around the migration in the near future which will cover this.` - `References to "reset cap table while still honoring original community" suggest possible supply changes.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Deliver a comprehensive migration FAQ and technical documentation before any snapshots occur. *Implication:* Prioritizes technical clarity but may delay the migration process while comprehensive documentation is prepared. b) Stage a phased communication strategy with immediate clarification on key concerns (exchange holdings, snapshot timing) followed by detailed technical specifications. *Implication:* Balances urgent community concerns with thorough documentation needs while maintaining migration momentum. c) Conduct a community town hall with live Q&A to address concerns interactively, followed by a summary document of decisions and next steps. *Implication:* Prioritizes community engagement but increases risk of misinformation if answers aren't fully prepared. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What token migration mechanism would best align with our goal of honoring the original community while enabling the transition to ElizaOS? **Context:** - `Rabbidfly speculated "i don't think there is a snapshot - just a burn/mint mechanic with CCIP".` - `Odilitime initially stated there is no snapshot but later mentioned "Shaw is saying there is a snapshot now".` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) A pure 1:1 snapshot-based migration with identical tokenomics to maintain maximum continuity for existing holders. *Implication:* Minimizes disruption for current holders but doesn't address any existing tokenomic imbalances in the system. b) A CCIP-based burn/mint mechanism with strategic adjustments to tokenomics that benefit long-term holders while improving utility. *Implication:* Enables tokenomic improvements but may create more complex migration requirements and potential taxation issues. c) A hybrid approach with immediate 1:1 migration for CEX holders and LP providers, plus optional tokenomic improvements for users who choose to participate in governance staking. *Implication:* Balances simplicity for passive holders with incentives for active participants but increases technical implementation complexity. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How should the new $ElizaOS token capture value from the open-source framework to ensure sustainable development? **Context:** - `Create a mechanism for ElizaOS token to capture value from the open-source framework (Mentioned by 3on_)` - `satsbased explained that "generative markets is an agent to agent A2A economy enabled by elizaOS"` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement transaction fees on agent-to-agent (A2A) economy interactions, with a percentage flowing to token stakers. *Implication:* Creates direct monetization of framework usage but might discourage adoption if fees are perceived as too high. b) Establish a protocol-owned treasury that captures value through optional premium services and redistributes to contributors and stakers. *Implication:* Maintains open-source accessibility while creating sustainable funding through premium services and features. c) Develop a marketplace where agent capabilities and specialized plugins are tokenized, with ElizaOS token used for governance of standards and access. *Implication:* Creates an ecosystem economy around agent capabilities rather than taxing core infrastructure usage. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Technical Infrastructure Stability **Summary of Topic:** The codebase is experiencing dependency conflicts and infrastructure issues that are impacting stability, particularly around Zod library versioning, OpenAI plugin compatibility, and build system consistency. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize technical debt reduction versus shipping new features for elizaOS v2? **Context:** - `Issue #5995 titled 'zod/v4 not loading in 1.5.10 (causing several plugins to fail)' by @harperaa is OPEN with 3 comments since September 23, 2025.` - `A significant new issue was opened to undertake a full cleanup of the `/core` package, aiming to remove all hacks and forks, deliver a pure JS/TS build, and validate it across Node, Bun, and browser environments ([#5976]).` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize fixing critical dependencies and technical debt before moving forward with new v2 features. *Implication:* Creates a more stable foundation but delays visible progress on v2 feature roadmap. b) Establish a parallel development track with dedicated resources for technical debt reduction alongside feature development. *Implication:* Balances technical stability with feature progress but requires additional coordination overhead. c) Focus on shipping v2 features with the minimum necessary fixes for stability, then dedicate a full refactoring cycle post-launch. *Implication:* Accelerates time-to-market for v2 but risks building on an unstable foundation that may require more extensive rework later. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What dependency management strategy should we adopt to prevent plugin compatibility issues in the future? **Context:** - `Core developers discussed Zod library versioning problems in the codebase` - `Every core member is responsible for the entire framework, there is no specific "god of zod" (answered by cjft)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement strict dependency pinning across all packages with automated compatibility testing for every PR. *Implication:* Maximizes stability but slows adoption of new dependency versions and creates maintenance overhead. b) Create a versioned plugin API with clear compatibility matrices and automated migration tools for major version changes. *Implication:* Enables both stability and evolution but requires significant upfront investment in architecture and tooling. c) Adopt a monorepo approach with shared dependencies and global version management to ensure consistency across packages. *Implication:* Simplifies dependency management but may limit flexibility for individual components to evolve independently. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: Product Strategy Alignment **Summary of Topic:** Recent announcements about sunsetting auto.fun while continuing to evolve DegenAI indicate a potential strategic shift that needs to be reconciled with our monthly goal of attracting users to auto.fun. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we reposition our product strategy given the sunsetting of auto.fun and the token migration? **Context:** - `Auto.Fun has been officially sunset (discontinued), as announced by Eric chen` - `DegenAI is planning a minor update to the staging version within two weeks` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Pivot focus to DegenAI as the primary user-facing product, reframing the monthly goal around DegenAI adoption metrics. *Implication:* Creates clarity around product focus but requires rapid adjustment of marketing and community expectations. b) Develop a replacement for auto.fun's functionality within the ElizaOS ecosystem that better aligns with the agent-to-agent (A2A) economy vision. *Implication:* Maintains continuity with the launchpad vision while evolving the implementation to better match current strategic direction. c) Shift strategic focus to the ElizaOS framework itself, positioning it as the core product with DegenAI as a reference implementation. *Implication:* Aligns with open-source values but may reduce immediate monetization opportunities compared to end-user products. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What agent showcase strategy should replace our plan to demonstrate 24/7 agent activity on auto.fun? **Context:** - `Current focus: Stabilize and attract new users to auto.fun by showcasing 24/7 agent activity (streaming, trading, shitposting), ship production ready elizaOS v2.` - `Spartan remains the primary agent, available to DegenAI token holders (1M+ holders)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Create a dedicated showcase platform for Spartan and other agents, demonstrating capabilities through public channels and dashboards. *Implication:* Maintains visibility strategy but requires new infrastructure development to replace auto.fun's showcase role. b) Partner with existing platforms (X, Discord, Telegram) to showcase agent capabilities in real communities rather than on a dedicated platform. *Implication:* Leverages existing user bases but sacrifices control over the presentation environment and user experience. c) Shift to a contributor-focused strategy, showcasing the framework through developer advocacy, hackathons, and community plugin development. *Implication:* Builds a more sustainable developer ecosystem but may reduce immediate visibility with end-users and investors. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.