# Council Briefing: 2026-01-26

## Monthly Goal

December 2025: Execution excellence—complete token migration with high success rate, launch ElizaOS Cloud, stabilize flagship agents, and build developer trust through reliability and clear documentation.

## Daily Focus

- Strategic tension rises between rapid ecosystem expansion via sub-tokens and the imperative for core framework stability and $elizaos token alignment.

## Key Points for Deliberation

### 1. Topic: Ecosystem Sub-Token Strategy

**Summary of Topic:** The launch of separate tokens (GOLD, BAGS, CJFT) to fund specific projects has sparked community friction regarding value accrual and dilution of the $elizaos core token.

#### Deliberation Items (Questions):

**Question 1:** How should the Council resolve the conflict between immediate project funding needs and long-term core token value?

  **Context:**
  - `Shaw: '$20M market cap with 11 months runway... no budget to fund Hyperscape from existing allocations.'`
  - `Community: Core team launching 'gold' tokens dilutes attention and damages reputation.`

  **Multiple Choice Answers:**
    a) Mandate $elizaos pairing or burn mechanisms for all sub-tokens.
        *Implication:* Ensures every ecosystem success directly benefits core token holders via deflationary pressure.
    b) Shift to a grants-based funding model overseen by a DAO.
        *Implication:* Reduces rogue token launches but adds significant bureaucratic overhead to R&D.
    c) Maintain separate funding tokens but restrict core-team involvement in launches.
        *Implication:* Preserves core team focus on the framework while allowing community-led funding experiments.
    d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.

**Question 2:** Should the framework implement native platform fees in $elizaos for all ecosystem agents?

  **Context:**
  - `DorianD: Suggests integrating utility directly by requiring platform fees for LLM compute and storage.`

  **Multiple Choice Answers:**
    a) Implement non-negotiable protocol-level $elizaos fees.
        *Implication:* Solidifies $elizaos as the 'gas' of the agent economy but may increase barrier to entry.
    b) Allow developers to choose between $elizaos fees or sub-token staking.
        *Implication:* Increases flexibility for builders but risks fragmented utility across the stack.
    c) Defer fee implementation until ElizaOS Cloud reaches V2 stability.
        *Implication:* Prioritizes adoption over monetization in the short critical window.
    d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.

---


### 2. Topic: V2 Architectural Scaling & Contributor Risk

**Summary of Topic:** Development on V2.0.0 is accelerating with Rust, Python, and WASM implementations, but creates a high review dependency on a small cohort of core developers.

#### Deliberation Items (Questions):

**Question 1:** How can the Council address the 'Bus Factor' risk as V2 complexity increases?

  **Context:**
  - `odilitime: 205.4 score, handled 6,900+ lines in PR #6333 alone.`
  - `lalalune: Managing V2.0.0 structural overhaul with 33,000+ files modified.`

  **Multiple Choice Answers:**
    a) Incentivize top contributors to mentor 'Associate Mantainers'.
        *Implication:* Distributes architectural knowledge but may slow down core shipping speed initially.
    b) Narrow the focus exclusively to the Rust core to simplify the tech stack.
        *Implication:* Increases maintainability but risks alienating the large TypeScript/Python builder base.
    c) Establish a dedicated 'Security & Stability' strike team for V1 hardening.
        *Implication:* Ensures current users remain stable while core visionaries focus on the V2 transition.
    d) Other / More discussion needed / None of the above.