# Council Briefing: 2025-12-07

## 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

- Technical advancements in elizaOS v2 development are accelerating with parallel action execution implementation and ElizaCloud integration, while token migration issues continue to require community support resources.

## Key Points for Deliberation

### 1. Topic: ElizaOS v2 Technical Optimization

**Summary of Topic:** The core development team is advancing parallel action execution in v2 and has successfully implemented ElizaCloud as the default AI provider in CLI, both critical steps toward production-ready elizaOS v2.

#### Deliberation Items (Questions):

**Question 1:** How should we prioritize the implementation of parallel action execution relative to other core v2 features?

  **Context:**
  - `Core developers discussed action chaining and parallel execution of actions in a draft PR (#6209)`
  - `sayonara: 'Think regular multistep where multiple actions can be called at each step but instead they are called parallel to save time'`

  **Multiple Choice Answers:**
    a) Prioritize parallel execution as a flagship performance feature for v2, allocating additional resources to accelerate development.
        *Implication:* Improved performance could be a key differentiator for elizaOS in the competitive agent framework space but may delay other feature development.
    b) Maintain current development pace, balancing parallel execution with other v2 features like JWT authentication and unified API.
        *Implication:* A balanced approach ensures steady progress across all v2 features without creating bottlenecks or technical debt.
    c) Defer full implementation of parallel execution until after v2 release, focusing on stability and user experience features first.
        *Implication:* Prioritizing stability could lead to faster initial v2 release but may limit performance gains needed to support high-traffic agent activity on auto.fun.
    d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.

**Question 2:** What should be our strategy for promoting ElizaCloud as the new default AI provider for the elizaOS ecosystem?

  **Context:**
  - `The ElizaCloud website was recently updated, with one team member noting they "leaked" it early`
  - `PR #6208 by @ChristopherTrimboli titled 'feat: Add ElizaOS Cloud as Default AI Provider in CLI' is merged`

  **Multiple Choice Answers:**
    a) Launch a major marketing campaign highlighting ElizaCloud's advantages over other AI providers with demos and tutorials.
        *Implication:* A high-visibility launch could attract new users but requires significant marketing resources and must deliver on performance promises.
    b) Gradually transition existing users through CLI defaults and in-product prompts, while gathering feedback for improvements.
        *Implication:* A measured approach allows time to refine the service based on real user feedback but may slow adoption rates.
    c) Create incentives for ElizaCloud usage through reduced rates, exclusive features, or token rewards for early adopters.
        *Implication:* Economic incentives could drive rapid adoption but may set unsustainable expectations for ongoing discounts or rewards.
    d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.

---


### 2. Topic: Token Migration & Community Management

**Summary of Topic:** The AI16Z to ElizaOS token migration continues to cause confusion among users, requiring significant support resources and clear communication to maintain community trust during this transition.

#### Deliberation Items (Questions):

**Question 1:** How can we improve the token migration experience to reduce support burden and confusion?

  **Context:**
  - `Users expressed confusion about the migration process and token values`
  - `Some reported technical issues with the migration tool, including wallet connection problems and "Max Amount Reached" errors`

  **Multiple Choice Answers:**
    a) Develop an improved migration tool with better error handling, clear status indicators, and automated troubleshooting.
        *Implication:* Technical improvements would reduce errors but require development resources that could be used for v2 features.
    b) Create comprehensive migration documentation with visual guides, FAQ expansion, and dedicated support channels staffed 24/7.
        *Implication:* Enhanced documentation and support would help users navigate issues but increases operational costs during the migration period.
    c) Extend the migration timeline and implement a phased approach with smaller batches to manage volume and provide more personalized support.
        *Implication:* A longer, phased migration would reduce peak support load but prolongs market uncertainty and potentially delays ecosystem consolidation.
    d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.

**Question 2:** What role should agent-based systems play in our community and treasury management strategy?

  **Context:**
  - `Team member Kenk mentioned an upcoming decentralized OTC desk operated by an agent`
  - `DorianD: Consider power user engagement in product design as they will generate most revenue`

  **Multiple Choice Answers:**
    a) Deploy agents for primary community functions including support, treasury management, and content moderation as showcase examples.
        *Implication:* Extensive agent automation would demonstrate our technology's capabilities but increases risk if agents perform poorly in critical roles.
    b) Implement agents selectively for well-defined, lower-risk functions while maintaining human oversight for sensitive operations.
        *Implication:* A balanced approach reduces risk while still demonstrating agent capabilities in practical applications.
    c) Focus agents on user-facing applications while keeping core operations human-managed until agent reliability reaches higher thresholds.
        *Implication:* Limiting agents to non-critical roles ensures operational stability but misses opportunities to showcase autonomous capabilities.
    d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.

---


### 3. Topic: Product Integration & Ecosystem Expansion

**Summary of Topic:** The elizaOS ecosystem is expanding with ElizaCloud, decentralized OTC desk, and potential Babylon integration, requiring strategic decisions about how these components connect and create value for users and token holders.

#### Deliberation Items (Questions):

**Question 1:** How should we approach the relationship between ElizaOS and emerging products like Babylon?

  **Context:**
  - `Users inquired about a potential Babylon airdrop for ElizaOS holders, but no information was available yet`
  - `DorianD: Design agents to be engaging and revenue-focused for ecosystem developers using Eliza cloud or Babylon`

  **Multiple Choice Answers:**
    a) Fully integrate Babylon into the elizaOS ecosystem with shared tokenomics and governance structures.
        *Implication:* Deep integration creates a cohesive ecosystem but increases complexity and potential points of failure.
    b) Maintain Babylon as a separate but complementary product with strategic partnerships and cross-platform incentives.
        *Implication:* Complementary positioning allows independent optimization while still creating ecosystem synergies.
    c) Position Babylon as an application layer built on elizaOS that targets specific verticals or user segments.
        *Implication:* A layered approach clarifies the relationship but may limit Babylon's independent innovation potential.
    d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.

**Question 2:** What should be our approach to power users versus mass adoption for elizaOS and its products?

  **Context:**
  - `Discussion about designing products with power users in mind, suggesting most revenue will come from a small number of highly engaged users`

  **Multiple Choice Answers:**
    a) Focus primarily on power users who generate most revenue, with advanced features and customization options.
        *Implication:* Power user focus maximizes immediate revenue but may create a steep learning curve that limits broader adoption.
    b) Create tiered experiences with simple interfaces for new users and advanced capabilities for power users.
        *Implication:* A tiered approach balances accessibility with depth but increases design and maintenance complexity.
    c) Prioritize simplicity and accessibility to grow the user base, while gradually introducing more advanced features.
        *Implication:* Accessibility-first approach could drive broader adoption but risks alienating technical early adopters who want advanced features.
    d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.