# Council Briefing: 2025-11-26 ## 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 Babylon platform has reached significant growth milestone of 100k signups while the token migration process faces critical communication challenges with exchanges and users. ## Key Points for Deliberation ### 1. Topic: Token Migration Strategy **Summary of Topic:** The ongoing AI16Z to ELIZAOS token migration has created significant friction with exchange partners and community members due to snapshot communication issues, particularly affecting Korean exchanges and Kraken users. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize resolving the exchange communication issues around the token migration? **Context:** - `Major controversy emerged regarding Korean exchanges (particularly Bithumb) where users claim the exchange announced full migration support but later backtracked.` - `Similar migration issues reported with Kraken users.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize high-volume exchanges (Bithumb, Kraken) with direct executive outreach and offer technical support teams. *Implication:* Focuses resources on largest user impact but may create perception of preferential treatment. b) Implement a standardized manual migration process for all affected users regardless of exchange. *Implication:* Ensures fairness but significantly increases operational overhead and may delay other initiatives. c) Maintain current approach of case-by-case resolution while improving documentation clarity. *Implication:* Preserves development bandwidth but risks prolonging user frustration and potential reputation damage. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** Should we extend the 90-day migration window given the exchange communication challenges? **Context:** - `90-day migration window is in place, providing time for resolution.` - `Team maintains that tokens purchased after the snapshot date won't be migrated.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Maintain the current 90-day window as it provides sufficient time to resolve issues. *Implication:* Preserves timeline discipline but may create hardship for users with complex exchange situations. b) Extend the window by 30-60 days with clear milestones for exchange integration completion. *Implication:* Demonstrates flexibility but could set precedent for further extensions and delay completion of the migration. c) Implement a tiered timeline - 90 days for standard migrations, 120 days for exchange-specific cases with proof of ownership. *Implication:* Balances fairness with operational constraints but introduces additional complexity to communicate. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** What verification mechanisms should we implement for pre-snapshot token ownership claims? **Context:** - `Users who held tokens before the snapshot but on exchanges are advised to keep them there for automatic migration or submit manual migration requests with proof of pre-snapshot ownership.` - `Serikiki confirmed that providing screenshots of token purchases before Nov 11 to the team is sufficient proof for migration.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Accept screenshots with clear timestamp information as sufficient proof of pre-snapshot ownership. *Implication:* Simplifies verification process but opens potential for doctored evidence and fraud. b) Implement blockchain-based verification through transaction signatures where possible, with human review for edge cases. *Implication:* Maximizes security and automation but requires technical sophistication from users. c) Require exchange API read access or official exchange statements as primary verification, with screenshots as secondary evidence. *Implication:* Balances security with accessibility but may create privacy concerns for some users. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 2. Topic: Babylon Growth Strategy **Summary of Topic:** The Babylon project has achieved 100k signups through effective referral mechanisms and Ethereum community integration, but faces challenges in distinguishing airdrop farmers from genuine users. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we leverage Babylon's 100k user milestone to advance our auto.fun user acquisition strategy? **Context:** - `Babylon project has reached 100k signups, with effective referral mechanisms driving growth.` - `Babylon has been promoted within Ethereum communities and was demonstrated at the Trustless Agents day event.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Integrate auto.fun directly within Babylon to create a seamless funnel for converting waitlist signups to active platform users. *Implication:* Maximizes conversion potential but could dilute the distinct value propositions of each platform. b) Use Babylon's user base for targeted marketing of auto.fun's unique agent capabilities and token launchpad features. *Implication:* Maintains platform separation while leveraging the audience, but requires additional marketing resources. c) Create a shared incentive structure where Babylon users get preferential status/benefits on auto.fun. *Implication:* Builds cross-platform synergy but may create complex tokenomics that are difficult to balance. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What approach should we take to filter airdrop farmers from genuine users in Babylon's referral system? **Context:** - `Kenk mentioned a need to distinguish between airdrop farmers and genuine users in Babylon's referral system.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement progressive engagement requirements where rewards increase with meaningful platform interaction. *Implication:* Rewards genuine engagement but adds complexity to the airdrop mechanics. b) Utilize AI-based behavior analysis to identify patterns consistent with airdrop farming versus genuine usage. *Implication:* Leverages our AI expertise but risks false positives/negatives in user classification. c) Require integration with existing Web3 identity solutions (e.g., Farcaster, ENS) to verify legitimate community members. *Implication:* Increases quality of participants but potentially reduces total acquisition numbers. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. --- ### 3. Topic: elizaOS v2 Technical Roadmap **Summary of Topic:** Development efforts on elizaOS v2 show progress with PR approvals and standards development, but face technical challenges in creating a truly autonomous system with interoperable agents. #### Deliberation Items (Questions): **Question 1:** How should we prioritize the development of open standards (8004 and x402) for autonomous agents against other elizaOS v2 features? **Context:** - `Ethereum Foundation is supporting AI builders and the development of open standards (8004 and x402) for autonomous agents.` - `PR #6166 in the elizaOS/eliza repository was updated and expanded by Odilitime, later approved by Stan.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Prioritize standards development and integration as the foundation for all other v2 features. *Implication:* Creates a strong architectural foundation but may delay user-facing features. b) Balance standards work with user-facing features by implementing them in parallel development tracks. *Implication:* Maintains development momentum on multiple fronts but risks resource dilution. c) Focus on shipping core v2 functionality first, then retrofit standards compliance afterward. *Implication:* Gets product to market faster but may require significant rework later. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 2:** What technical capabilities in elizaOS v2 would most effectively showcase 24/7 autonomous agent activity on auto.fun? **Context:** - `Current monthly goal: Stabilize and attract new users to auto.fun by showcasing 24/7 agent activity (streaming, trading, shitposting), ship production ready elizaOS v2.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Enhanced event-driven architecture allowing agents to autonomously respond to market/social triggers without human intervention. *Implication:* Demonstrates true autonomy but introduces complexity in testing and reliability engineering. b) Improved multi-agent coordination protocols enabling collaborative agent behaviors that create emergent content and trading strategies. *Implication:* Creates more sophisticated and interesting agent behaviors but requires solving challenging coordination problems. c) Robust persistence and self-healing capabilities ensuring agents maintain state and recover from failures automatically. *Implication:* Ensures reliable 24/7 operation but may be less visibly impressive than new functional capabilities. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above. **Question 3:** How should we adapt our GitHub issue management approach to better align with the production-ready elizaOS v2 goal? **Context:** - `Recent GitHub activity shows 1 new pull request, 1 new issue, and 4 active contributors working on the project.` - `Issue #6168 titled 'Add OpenAI-compatible API' by @joglomedia is OPEN with 1 comment.` **Multiple Choice Answers:** a) Implement stricter issue prioritization focused exclusively on stability and production-readiness criteria. *Implication:* Focuses team on core stability but may delay features that could drive user adoption. b) Adopt a dual-track system separating v2 stabilization issues from future enhancement requests. *Implication:* Balances immediate needs with long-term vision but requires additional management overhead. c) Create explicit user-impact ratings for all issues to prioritize those with greatest effect on auto.fun showcase capabilities. *Implication:* Aligns development directly with user acquisition goals but may overlook important architectural improvements. d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.