Author: Haotian
@0xzerebro officially announced the release of the ZerePy framework and standards, and many people have shifted their focus to why tokens are not issued for unclear projects, falling into a fanciful idea of creating a new ELIZA community myth. This question is indeed quite thought-provoking; let's discuss our views:
1) For DAO organizations driven by ownerless AI Agent applications like ai16z, the ELIZA framework standard represents a community cohesion and the expectation of subsequent open-source ecological development.
The influence of ELIZA as a framework standard within the Github developer community is growing at a visibly rapid pace. It is endorsed as a community token by ai16z and has garnered consistent market expectations. Many accidental factors are involved, and this was not the initially set development path. Therefore, how ai16z designs Tokenomics and clarifies the relationship between ai16z and ELIZA will be of utmost importance. However, how to integrate still holds uncertainties and requires further observation.
2) Here comes the question: the subsequent projects like ARC, Swarms, etc., have adopted the first token issuance route via Github repo (IGO). This novel MEME-style issuance method itself is a community financing mechanism, which is understandable.
However, whether the framework standard itself should issue tokens, and how to empower after issuing tokens becomes crucial. Currently, under the market's FOMO sentiment, issuing tokens seems to have become standard, but without a judgment standard, there will likely be a phase of issuing tokens just for the sake of it, which is obviously undesirable.
3) The emergence of ZerePy serves as a model; essentially, the relationship between zerePy and Zerebro is akin to that between OP Stack and Optimism. It will share Zerebro's successful deployment experience in standalone AI applications in the form of an open-source foundational framework, leading to the emergence of more standalone AI applications with Zerebro genes in the market.
For Zerebro, this is a commercialization expansion method for open-source traffic generation and ecological growth. Whether to issue a new framework token or authorize a MEME token is possible, but the specific choice depends on Zerebro's market focus. Recklessly issuing a 'spin-off' is not wise for an ambitious standalone AI.
Unless the ZerePy ecosystem develops to a certain extent with a trend towards platformization, and the old Zerebro's Tokenomics cannot cater to ZerePy's incentive efficiency, the significance of issuing tokens will only then become apparent. Until then, similar tokens can only be viewed as MEME.
Thus, I believe that soon, the question of whether the framework standard should issue tokens will evolve into an intrinsic logic:
For those who fully consider the efficiency of Tokenomics, it is necessary to leverage platform effects, and if the focus is on achieving blockchain operations within the framework standard, issuing tokens becomes essential. However, for ecosystems focused on standalone AI or other types of DAO organizations, whether the framework needs to issue tokens must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, a reminder for friends: the 'asset issuance' method first released on Github is indeed novel, but early stages will inevitably see rampant scams. Learning to discern the quality of Github repository code, analyzing the feasibility of its outlined commercial application vision, and assessing the reliability of team members are all essential.
Regarding community MEME tokens being endorsed by officials, ELIZA has set a precedent. Whether similar projects will exist in the future is fundamentally uncertain, especially since whether ELIZA can truly be empowered has become an unknown variable. Randomly seeing a framework standard and thoughtlessly buying in poses too great a risk based on speculation.