# Council Briefing: 2025-11-15 ## 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 AI16Z to elizaOS token migration is in full swing with multi-chain deployment while technical development focuses on implementing cross-chain capabilities and enhanced framework stability for elizaOS v2. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: Token Migration & Exchange Strategy **Summary of Topic:** The migration from AI16Z to elizaOS tokens is ongoing with multi-chain availability (Solana, Ethereum, Base, BSC), but requires strategic decisions regarding exchange partnerships, particularly with Korean exchanges which community members view as crucial for price action. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize Korean exchange listings in our overall exchange strategy? **Context:** - `Korean community members emphasized the importance of listing on Korean exchanges, particularly Bithumb (qweqwe, Web3Go, kk)` - `Team representative (jasyn_bjorn) confirmed they are in contact with Korean exchanges` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize Korean exchanges with dedicated resources and incentives for listings on Bithumb and others. *Implication:* Could accelerate price action and adoption but may divert resources from other strategic priorities. b) Maintain balanced approach with equal focus on global and Korean exchanges. *Implication:* Ensures broader market coverage but may not capitalize on the enthusiasm of the Korean community. c) Focus on tier-1 global exchanges first, then Korean exchanges as secondary priority. *Implication:* Maximizes global visibility first but risks losing momentum with the Korean community. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What approach should we take to resolve token price visibility issues in wallets? **Context:** - `User Abdul couldn't see the price of Eliza coins in Trust Wallet` - `Some users are experiencing issues with token price visibility in wallets` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Create comprehensive wallet integration guides and outreach to major wallet providers. *Implication:* Proactive approach that addresses both documentation and technical integration challenges. b) Focus on establishing deeper CoinMarketCap/CoinGecko integrations first, as most wallets pull price data from these aggregators. *Implication:* Addresses the root cause but may take longer to resolve immediate user issues. c) Implement a wallet-compatible price feed API as part of the elizaOS infrastructure. *Implication:* Creates a more sustainable long-term solution but requires additional development resources. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** What is the optimal duration for the migration window, considering the current 90-day period? **Context:** - `Migration from AI16Z to elizaOS tokens is actively ongoing through a dedicated portal` - `Users report successful migrations using wallets like Phantom` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Maintain the current 90-day window to provide ample time for all users. *Implication:* Ensures accessibility but prolongs the transition period and potential market uncertainty. b) Shorten the window to 60 days to accelerate the transition and focus community attention. *Implication:* Creates greater urgency but risks excluding users with legitimate migration challenges. c) Keep 90-day window but add incentives for early migration within first 30 days. *Implication:* Maintains accessibility while encouraging faster adoption of the new token. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Technical Framework Evolution **Summary of Topic:** GitHub activity shows focused efforts on enhancing elizaOS v2's core stability and cross-chain capabilities, with key developments in database plugin support, RLS security, and environment variable handling that improve the framework's reliability. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we balance MySQL vs. PostgreSQL support in the elizaOS framework? **Context:** - `PR #6143 titled 'fix: plugin-mysql support, initPromise and other minor fixes' is open, addressing conditional MySQL vs SQL plugin selection` - `A critical issue with Row-Level Security (RLS) was resolved to prevent server_id validation from incorrectly blocking users when RLS isolation is disabled (#6139)` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Fully support both equally, ensuring feature parity between MySQL and PostgreSQL. *Implication:* Maximizes adoption potential but increases development and testing complexity. b) Prioritize PostgreSQL as primary with MySQL as secondary supported database. *Implication:* Focuses resources while still supporting organizations with MySQL requirements. c) Support PostgreSQL exclusively to optimize development resources and framework performance. *Implication:* Streamlines development but may limit adoption in MySQL-dependent environments. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What should be our approach to integrating zero-knowledge (ZK) technology into the elizaOS framework? **Context:** - `Brief discussion about ZK (zero-knowledge) technology applications` - `Suggestion that ZK could be better applied to smart contracts beyond simple cash payments` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Integrate ZK technology as a core framework feature for enhanced privacy and verification. *Implication:* Positions elizaOS as privacy-forward but requires significant core development. b) Develop a plugin architecture for ZK capabilities while keeping the core framework lightweight. *Implication:* Maintains framework flexibility while enabling ZK for specific use cases. c) Research ZK applications without immediate implementation until clear use cases emerge from the community. *Implication:* Preserves resources while staying informed about potential future integrations. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How should we approach cross-chain functionality for the elizaOS ecosystem? **Context:** - `The elizaOS token is available on multiple chains: Solana, Ethereum, Base, and BSC` - `User vloine asked how to bridge elizaOS from BSC to SOL` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Build our own cross-chain bridging infrastructure optimized for elizaOS use cases. *Implication:* Provides maximum control but requires significant development resources. b) Partner with existing bridge providers like Wormhole or Chainlink CCIP for cross-chain operations. *Implication:* Accelerates deployment but creates dependency on third-party infrastructure. c) Focus on Solana as primary chain with limited bridging to other chains through exchange-based solutions. *Implication:* Simplifies infrastructure but may limit cross-chain functionality and adoption. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: auto.fun Agent Activity Strategy **Summary of Topic:** While token migration and framework development are progressing, there's limited visible evidence of 24/7 agent activity on auto.fun (streaming, trading, shitposting) as outlined in the monthly goal, suggesting a potential strategic gap in user attraction initiatives. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize resources between technical framework development and agent activity visibility on auto.fun? **Context:** - `Monthly Goal: 'Stabilize and attract new users to auto.fun by showcasing 24/7 agent activity (streaming, trading, shitposting), ship production ready elizaOS v2'` - `PR #6111 'feat: add ElizaOS reference to runtime' was merged, described as 'a step towards creating a unified messaging API'` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Shift resources toward deploying more visible AI agents on auto.fun, even if it temporarily slows framework development. *Implication:* Prioritizes immediate user engagement over long-term technical foundations. b) Maintain current technical focus but add a small dedicated team for auto.fun agent activity. *Implication:* Balances priorities but may lead to slower progress in both areas. c) Complete core elizaOS v2 features first, then pivot resources to auto.fun agent deployment. *Implication:* Ensures solid technical foundation but delays user growth on auto.fun. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What type of agent activity should we prioritize on auto.fun to attract new users? **Context:** - `Monthly Goal mentions 'streaming, trading, shitposting' as agent activities` - `Team is developing a rebuilt X-like platform with AI agents for prediction markets, with demo planned for upcoming Devconnect event` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Focus on trading agents with visible performance metrics and social sharing capabilities. *Implication:* Appeals to crypto users through financial utility but requires robust trading infrastructure. b) Prioritize content creation and social agents (streaming, shitposting) for maximum visibility. *Implication:* Generates broader appeal but may not showcase the full technical capabilities of the framework. c) Develop prediction market agents that combine financial and social elements. *Implication:* Creates a unique differentiated offering but requires more complex agent development. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.