Why There Are No Tokens for Framework Standards, and the ELIZA Myth

Author: Haotian @0xzerebro officially announced the release of the ZerePy framework and standards, and many people have shifted their attention to why there is no issuance of tokens for unknown brands

0xzerebro officially announced the release of ZerePy standards and frameworks, which has drawn attention to the absence of token issuance for several emerging brands, leading to speculation about a new ELIZA community. Here's a deeper analysis of this topic:

1) For DAO organizations like ai16z that are driven by ownerless AI Agent applications, the ELIZA framework standard serves as a common ground and shared expectations for subsequent open-source ecological development.

Within the GitHub developer community, the influence of the ELIZA framework standard is rapidly expanding. It is endorsed by ai16z as a community token and has gained market consensus. This involves numerous coincidental factors and does not strictly adhere to the initially planned development path. Hence, it is crucial to observe how ai16z designs Tokenomics and defines the relationship between ai16z and ELIZA. However, this integration still involves variables and requires further observation.

2) Now, let's consider subsequent projects like ARC and Swarms, which have adopted the approach of first issuing tokens via GitHub repo (IGO). This novel MEME-based issuance method is inherently a form of community financing, which is understandable.

But, should the framework standard itself issue tokens, and how can it be empowered after issuing tokens? These questions become paramount. Currently, amidst the market's Fomo sentiment, issuing tokens seems to have become a standard practice. However, without clear judgment criteria, there will likely be a phase of issuing tokens for the sake of issuing tokens, which is evidently undesirable.

3) The emergence of ZerePy is a prime example. In essence, the relationship between ZerePy and Zerebro is similar to that between OP Stack and Optimism. It will externalize Zerebro's successful experience in deploying single AI applications into an open-source foundational framework, enabling the market to observe more single AI applications carrying Zerebro genes.

For Zerebro, this is a method of generating open-source traffic and expanding its ecosystem commercially. It can choose to issue a new framework token or authorize a MEME token, depending on its market focus. An ambitious single AI should not recklessly issue "spin-off" tokens.

Unless the ZerePy ecosystem develops significantly, tending towards platformization, and the old Zerebro's Tokenomics cannot support ZerePy's incentive effectiveness, only then will the importance of issuing tokens become evident. Until then, similar tokens can only be considered MEME.

Therefore, I believe that soon, the question of whether to issue tokens for the framework standard will transform into an internal logic:

For frameworks that fully consider Tokenomics effectiveness, need to leverage platform effects, and focus on achieving chain operations, issuing tokens is necessary. But, for ecosystemsを中心にsingle AI or other types of DAO organizations, whether the framework needs to issue tokens should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, a heads-up for friends: the "asset issuance" method of first issuing on GitHub is novel, but scams are bound to be rife in the early stages. Learning to evaluate the quality of GitHub repository code, analyzing the feasibility of its commercial application vision, and assessing the reliability of team members are all essential.

As for community MEME tokens being officially endorsed, ELIZA has set an example, but whether similar projects will exist in the future is inherently uncertain. Moreover, whether ELIZA can truly be empowered has become an unknown variable. Randomly encountering a framework standard and blindly buying into it, relying on speculative imagination, carries excessive risk.