# ElizaOS

> Independent ElizaOS review: the open-source AI agent framework, Eliza Labs winding down, the SDNY class action, and a token effectively worthless.

- Scores: Freedom 5.2/10 (grade D), Returns 2.2/10 (grade F)
- Category: agent · Token: ELIZAOS
- Published: 2026-03-03 · Updated: 2026-10-13
- Canonical: https://ownyourmind.ai/projects/elizaos/
- Data (scores + integrity verdicts, JSON): https://ownyourmind.ai/api/projects/elizaos.json
- Cite as: Own Your Mind (ownyourmind.ai), licence CC BY 4.0. Link the canonical URL.

Charts and interactive widgets are omitted here; their data is in the JSON above.

---

## What it does

ElizaOS is an open-source TypeScript framework for building autonomous AI agents. You install it, define your agent's personality via a character file, plug in the LLM of your choice (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Ollama for local inference), connect it to platforms (Discord, Telegram, X, Farcaster), and deploy. The framework handles memory, state management, planning, and multi-agent coordination.

The architecture is modular. A plugin system with 90-plus official packages covers everything from blockchain integrations (Solana, EVM chains) to social media bots to RAG-powered knowledge bases. Worlds and Rooms provide multi-agent orchestration, where multiple agents can coordinate within shared workspaces. Strategic Action Chaining enables LLM-driven tool calls with parallel execution and conditional branching. Deployment options range from local installation to Docker containers to Eliza Cloud (a hosted offering from the team).

The project launched in October 2024 as "ai16z" on Solana, a provocative play on Andreessen Horowitz's name. The concept: an AI-managed DAO where an agent called "Marc AIndreessen" would autonomously run a venture fund. The initial token sale on DAOs.fun raised 420.69 SOL. In January 2025, Andreessen Horowitz's Chris Dixon requested a name change due to brand confusion, and the project rebranded to ElizaOS.

In November 2025, Eliza Labs executed a token migration from AI16Z to ELIZAOS at a 1:6 swap ratio, expanding total supply by 40% from 6.6 billion to 11 billion tokens. The expansion created new allocations for SAFT investors, the team, a foundation, and ecosystem funds.

The project was created by Shaw Walters, a San Francisco-based developer who previously built the Webaverse game platform (which collapsed after a treasury security breach) and MagicML, an open-source AI agent initiative. An arXiv paper (2501.06781) with 14 co-authors describes the framework architecture. Eliza Labs announced a Stanford FDCI research grant exceeding $250,000, though a federal class action filed in April 2026 challenges the nature of that arrangement. Chainlink provided CCIP for cross-chain token bridging.

On 14 April 2026, Shaw Walters posted on X that Eliza Labs is winding down. He confirmed he will continue building ElizaOS full-time, with v3 in beta at the time of writing. The team that once operated Eliza Labs as a company is no longer intact; what remains is Shaw as primary maintainer and an open-source contributor base that is itself shrinking.

On 4 August 2026 Walters went further still: he declared the ELIZAOS token "dead", said the foundation is closing, and told holders to sell. Per CoinDesk, the foundation transferred its remaining treasury to settle the Burwick Law class action, and Walters ruled out any further foundation support, buybacks, or supply measures. He will keep building the open-source framework without launching another token.

## The product in practice

Grounded in our ElizaOS review, its GitHub and npm metrics, and independent developer accounts. This is the clearest product-versus-token split in the set.

**Who it's for.** TypeScript developers who want to build and self-host autonomous agents with full control, plug in any LLM, and wire agents into Discord, X, Telegram or on-chain actions. It is a framework rather than a no-code launchpad, so it rewards people comfortable in code, and rewards them with deep customisation. Non-technical operators are better served elsewhere.

**What it's like to build with.** ElizaOS is widely used: nearly 20,000 GitHub stars (October 2026) and a plugin catalogue the project puts in the hundreds, though monthly npm downloads of the core package have roughly halved since June 2026.  The developer experience is more mixed than the popularity suggests. An independent builder documented heavy framework friction, from copying over a thousand lines of plugin code just to add two HTTP headers, to a feature being dropped between versions with no migration path, and the next major release has sat in beta for months while effort moved to hosted products (the Eliza Cloud address now redirects to the Eliza personal agent at eliza.app). Powerful and open, with rough edges.

**Demand, honestly.** As a framework it has broad reach; the question that matters for the token is whether that reach is durable now that the company behind it is winding down. That question is now largely settled against the token: on 4 August 2026 the founder declared it "dead", ruled out buybacks or any replacement, and the foundation wound down after its remaining treasury went to settling the Burwick class action. He continues to build the framework himself, and the contributor base has thinned from its peak-hype levels. Usage is broad; the maintainership is narrower than it was.

**Where the brand points now.** As of 4 October 2026, elizaos.ai permanently redirects to elizaresearch.ai, branded "Eliza Research". That site presents Eliza as a personal agent running on the open-source elizaOS, plus a second product, slop.cash, which pays contributors in USDC on Solana for work on open-source problems. slop.cash names "$SLOP holder governance" as the steward of one listed project, but we found no published token contract, so we do not treat it as a token launch. The developer docs still live at docs.elizaos.ai.

**The value-capture gap.** This is the crux for investors. Framework success does not accrue to the token, an agent built on ElizaOS owes it nothing, which is why the token sits down roughly 99% from its early-2025 peak while the framework stays popular. Fixes to make the token the base currency for agent commerce were only ever proposals, and the 4 August declaration ruled them out. An April 2026 class action alleging the "AI agent" was human-operated has since been settled from the remaining treasury. A widely used open product with a broken token thesis, the textbook case the framework itself warns about.

## Value proposition

The pitch is the framework, not the token. ElizaOS has the largest GitHub footprint of any open-source AI agent framework in web3: 19,491 stars and 5,762 forks in a 24 September 2026 GitHub API read, 90-plus plugins, MIT licensed, daily commits as of May 2026.  The developer adoption is verifiable. Contributor count has fallen from 583 to 355 since the company wind-down was announced, which is a signal worth watching, but daily commit activity continues.

Three minutes from installation to your first running agent. That is the claimed onboarding time, and it is roughly accurate. The TypeScript foundation makes the framework accessible to the largest pool of web developers. Model-agnostic design means no vendor lock-in; swap between OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or run locally with Ollama. This flexibility is a genuine differentiator.

auto.fun, launched in April 2025, extends the platform to non-developers. Create and deploy AI agents via a no-code interface, with token launches via bonding curves on Raydium. This is the consumer-facing product that expands the addressable market beyond developers.

The counter-narrative is the token. The original AI16Z token reached an all-time high in January 2025. Adjusted for the 1:6 swap ratio, the effective ATH per ELIZAOS is roughly $0.408. The token is down more than 99% from that level. The "first AI VC fund" thesis, where an AI agent autonomously manages investments, hasn't generated demonstrable returns. The DAO treasury, which once reportedly held around $10 million, has no publicly verified current value.

The token utility is thin. Governance voting is not yet live. There's no staking mechanism. There are no burns. No fee accrual from the framework itself. The token is effectively a speculative asset attached to a good open-source project. The potential Layer 1 blockchain launch (discussed with Saga since early 2025) would add token utility, but no concrete implementation exists. This is roadmap, not product.

## Tokenomics

ELIZAOS is a multi-chain token: SPL on Solana (primary), ERC-20 on Ethereum and Base, BEP-20 on BNB Chain, bridged via Chainlink CCIP. Maximum supply is 11 billion, and CoinGecko puts total supply at 9.3 billion, a figure that tracks the Solana mint. It moves in both directions, because CCIP burns tokens on Solana when they bridge out and mints them when they bridge in. Circulating supply runs at 68.0% of the maximum. (figures as of 2026-10-19)

Distribution (post-migration):

- **Community (original holders):** 60% (1:6 swap from AI16Z, immediate unlock)
- **SAFT Investors:** 15% (12-month cliff, then linear vesting; specific investors undisclosed)
- **Team and Contributors:** 10% (12-month cliff from October 2024, plus 24-month linear vesting via Streamflow smart contracts)
- **Liquidity and Exchange Listings:** 5.5% (607 million tokens, programmatic release)
- **Foundation:** 4.5% (24-month linear vesting)
- **Ecosystem:** 2.5% (3-month cliff, 9-month linear vesting)
- **Protocol-Owned Liquidity:** 2.5% (275 million tokens, programmatic deployment)

The distribution story has two chapters. Chapter one: a fair launch on DAOs.fun in October 2024, no pre-mine, no VC allocation, community-first. Chapter two: a token migration in November 2025 that expanded supply by 40% and created new allocations for SAFT investors (15%), the team (10%), a foundation (4.5%), and ecosystem funds (2.5%). These allocations did not exist in the original fair launch. Original holders were diluted to fund them.

On the positive side, vesting is enforced on-chain via Streamflow smart contracts, with no early unlock discretion. This is better than handshake vesting. The SAFT cliff expires approximately October 2025, with the team cliff also passing; 24 months of linear selling pressure follows.

The post-swap ATH was on 12 November 2025, shortly after the migration completed. The effective ATH (adjusting the pre-swap peak for the 1:6 ratio) is approximately $0.408, and the token is down more than 99% from that. CoinGecko lists it on Gate, Kraken, MEXC and a tail of smaller venues (Crypto.com Exchange delisted it on 12 October 2026), with DEX pools on Solana (Raydium, Orca) and BSC (PancakeSwap). Liquidity is thin, with Gate carrying the largest share of volume. Micro-cap territory with high daily volume-to-market-cap ratio driven by speculation.

## How to participate

**Build agents.** The primary participation mode. Install ElizaOS via npm or bun, define a character file, add plugins, and deploy. TypeScript or JavaScript proficiency required. Documentation at docs.elizaos.ai is thorough. Supports local development and Docker containerisation. No capital required beyond LLM API costs.

**Contribute to the framework.** 355 contributors as of May 2026, down from 583 before the company wind-down. That decline is real, but the codebase is still active. Plugin development is the highest-impact contribution path. MIT licence means unrestricted use. GitHub Discussions remain active.

**Use auto.fun.** The no-code path. Create and deploy AI agents for social media management, DeFi automation, and other tasks. Launch agent tokens via bonding curves on Solana. Available since April 2025, still early-stage.

**Governance.** Hold ELIZAOS tokens to participate in DAO proposals. Currently, governance operates through informal Discord signalling alongside the AI agent "Marc AIndreessen," which retains final investment decision authority. A formal on-chain voting module is under development but not yet live.

## Honest assessment

### What works

The framework itself is still alive. Over 19,000 GitHub stars, over 5,000 forks, daily commits as of May 2026, v3 in beta. MIT licensed with 90-plus plugins. Shaw Walters has committed to continuing full-time. The open-source codebase has enough forks that it cannot be killed by a company wind-down. If the framework has value, it will persist regardless of what happens to Eliza Labs as a legal entity.

Credit where it's due on the fair launch origin: DAOs.fun, 420.69 SOL raise, no pre-mine, no VC allocation at inception. The subsequent migration complicated that narrative substantially, but the original intent was community-first.

Open source credentials remain among the strongest in DeAI: 60 public repositories, MIT licence, an arXiv paper, and over 21,000 commits. The HuggingFace presence is minimal (zero models, two datasets), but the GitHub activity is verifiable and ongoing.

### What does not work

The token economy is broken. A micro-cap valuation for the "most popular AI agent framework in web3" suggests the market has concluded that being a good open-source framework doesn't translate into token value. And the market is probably right. There's no staking, no fee accrual, no burns, and no functioning governance vote. The token has no clear value capture mechanism.

The 40% supply expansion during migration is the central betrayal of the fair launch thesis. Original holders were diluted without formal on-chain governance approval to fund team, SAFT investor, foundation, and ecosystem allocations. Framing this as "75% community" allocation (by including ecosystem and foundation) is marketing maths. The effective insider allocation post-migration is 32% (SAFT 15% + team 10% + foundation 4.5% + ecosystem 2.5%).

Governance doesn't exist in practice. The AI agent "Marc AIndreessen" retains final decision authority over treasury investments. Token holders can suggest but not vote. Major decisions, including the rebranding, ticker change, token migration, SAFT deals, and supply expansion, were all made unilaterally by Eliza Labs. For a project that launched as a DAO, this is a significant gap between narrative and reality.

Princeton researchers demonstrated that attackers can inject false context into an agent's persistent memory via social media interactions, manipulating trading decisions through Sybil attacks. Eliza Labs' response: "no direct updates were made as a result." For agents potentially handling financial transactions, an acknowledged but unpatched vulnerability is alarming.

### What's changed since publication

On 14 April 2026, Shaw Walters posted on X (status ID 2044174339994726823) that Eliza Labs is winding down and he is returning to basics. He confirmed he will continue building ElizaOS full-time, with v3 in beta. The company structure is effectively gone. What remains is an open-source project with one primary maintainer.

Eliza Labs had previously filed an antitrust and fraud lawsuit against X Corp (Case 3:25-cv-07243-TSH, NDCA, filed August 2025) over account suspensions and alleged use of Eliza's technology to build competing products. That case was dismissed with prejudice in December 2025 after both parties agreed to resolve it. X denied wrongdoing and stated no payment was made.

On 20 April 2026, Burwick Law filed a federal class action against Shaw Walters, Eliza Labs Inc., and co-defendants (Case 1:26-cv-03238, SDNY) on behalf of token purchasers. The complaint alleges: the "ai16z" name was chosen to impersonate Andreessen Horowitz; the AI agent "Marc AIndreessen" was operated by humans, not autonomously as advertised; the November 2025 migration diluted holders by 40% to fund undisclosed insiders; and insiders sold before public announcements. These are allegations, not findings, and none was tested: Walters said on 4 August 2026 that the team settled rather than defend it, telling The Block "their claim was ridiculous, but we didn't have the capital to legally fight it so we settled". The foundation's remaining treasury went to the settlement.

The class action's core allegation about Marc AIndreessen being manually operated is worth noting for the article's earlier claim that the agent "retains final investment decision authority." That framing is now actively disputed in federal litigation.

GitHub contributor count has dropped from 583 to 355 (observed May 2026 per GitHub Insights) since the wind-down announcement. Stars have continued rising (19,491 in a 24 September 2026 GitHub API read, from 17,662 at publication).  The framework is not dead, but the organisational momentum behind it has thinned considerably.

### The risk

Shaw Walters' prior project Webaverse collapsed after a treasury security breach, and now Eliza Labs is winding down with a federal class action filed against him personally. This pattern is worth taking seriously, even before any legal determination. The concentration risk is now acute: the entire framework depends on one person continuing to show up.

Competition has not eased. Within web3, [Virtuals Protocol](https://ownyourmind.ai/projects/virtuals/) has a more complete tokenisation model with real revenue, and [Olas](https://ownyourmind.ai/projects/autonolas/) offers stronger decentralisation with functioning on-chain governance. From the mainstream AI world, LangChain (over 140,000 GitHub stars in a September 2026 read)  and CrewAI are adding web3 integrations without token overhead. ElizaOS sits between these worlds without clearly dominating either, and the reputational damage from the class action will not help adoption among enterprise builders.

The "AI VC fund" thesis that justified the token now has a federal lawsuit alleging it was fraudulent marketing. Whether or not the allegation holds, the narrative is effectively dead.

Thin liquidity creates execution risk for any meaningful position. The token is micro-cap with high daily volume-to-market-cap ratios driven by speculation rather than organic demand.

### My position

I don't hold ELIZAOS. The framework is worth using if you're building AI agents. The token is not worth holding. That was true before the wind-down. It is more true now.

The distinction between the framework and the company matters here. ElizaOS the code lives on. Eliza Labs the entity does not. If you're a developer, that's fine. If you're a tokenholder, the picture is grim: a near-zero price, a federal class action, a dissolved company, and no value capture mechanism. The conditions I'd want to see before reconsidering (governance voting, token utility, security patch) are not getting more likely.

## Freedom Score: 52/100

ElizaOS scores 52/100 (D grade). Full methodology at [Freedom Score Methodology](https://ownyourmind.ai/resources/freedom-score-methodology/).

**Infrastructure decentralisation (6/20):** ElizaOS is a framework that runs on users' own infrastructure, which is philosophically decentralised. Anyone can run agents anywhere. However, the project has no decentralised infrastructure layer: no permissionless node network, no decentralised compute marketplace, no on-chain execution environment. The DAO treasury is managed by a single AI agent with significant centralisation in Eliza Labs. The auto.fun launchpad appears centrally operated. A planned L1 blockchain via Saga would improve this score but does not yet exist.

**Governance decentralisation (5/20):** Governance is informal and heavily centralised around Shaw Walters. Eliza Labs as a company is winding down (April 2026), which concentrates all decision-making in a single individual with no institutional structure behind it. The DAO voting module was promised but never launched. The claim that the AI agent "Marc AIndreessen" maintains final decision authority over treasury investments is disputed in federal litigation (SDNY 1:26-cv-03238), which alleges the agent was operated by humans rather than autonomously. The 40% supply expansion was decided without formal on-chain governance. Token holders have no binding vote mechanism.

**Token distribution fairness (7/15):** The original AI16Z token launched via DAOs.fun community sale, a relatively fair launch mechanism with no pre-mine or VC allocation. However, the migration to ELIZAOS expanded supply by 40% and created new allocations: 15% SAFT investors, 10% team, 4.5% foundation, 2.5% ecosystem. The community retained 60% at the 1:6 ratio. Vesting is enforced on-chain via Streamflow, which is positive. The project started with fair launch principles but the migration diluted original holders to fund insider allocations.

**Censorship resistance (10/15):** The framework is fully open-source (MIT) and can be self-hosted, meaning anyone can deploy agents without permission. Code is on GitHub with 5,400-plus forks, making it practically uncensorable at the framework layer. Ollama integration supports local model execution. However, agents typically depend on centralised LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) which can restrict usage. The auto.fun launchpad appears centrally operated and could theoretically censor agent launches.

**Data sovereignty (10/15):** Self-hosted ElizaOS agents store all data locally: memory, state, conversation history, and character files are under the user's control. The framework does not require data to be sent to Eliza Labs servers. Users who run agents on their own infrastructure have full data sovereignty. However, the Princeton memory injection vulnerability demonstrated that agent memory can be corrupted through social media interactions. Agents using cloud LLM APIs send conversation data to third-party providers. The Eliza Cloud hosting option reduces data sovereignty.

**Open source and transparency (14/15):** Near the top of the field. The entire framework is MIT-licensed with 60 public repositories. Over 19,000 stars, 355 contributors (down from 583 at publication), and over 21,000 commits as of May 2026. An arXiv paper describes the architecture. Vesting wallets are publicly tracked. Streamflow contracts enforce vesting transparently. Documentation is thorough. Ongoing gaps: token migration audit reports were promised but not published; DAO treasury operations remain opaque; contributor count decline warrants monitoring.

### Path to improvement

Three changes would materially increase ElizaOS's score:

1. **Ship the governance voting module.** This is the single highest-impact improvement. Token holders spending real money on ELIZAOS should have binding governance rights. The current model, where an AI agent has final decision authority and the team makes all major decisions unilaterally, contradicts the DAO thesis. On-chain governance with community proposals, transparent voting, and binding outcomes should be the minimum standard before asking people to buy governance tokens.
2. **Address the memory injection vulnerability.** Princeton researchers publicly disclosed a mechanism to manipulate agent trading decisions via memory injection, and Eliza Labs responded with "no direct updates were made." For a framework whose agents handle financial transactions, this is unacceptable. Publishing a formal security response, implementing mitigations, and commissioning a third-party audit of the core framework would demonstrate the security maturity that institutional adopters require.
3. **Establish clear token utility.** The ELIZAOS token currently has no value capture mechanism: no staking, no fee accrual, no burns, no governance voting. Either the L1 blockchain needs to ship with ELIZAOS as its native token, or auto.fun fees need to accrue to token holders, or some other concrete mechanism needs to create sustained demand beyond speculation. Great open-source software doesn't need a token; if you issue one, it needs a reason to exist.

## Returns Score: 22/100

ELIZAOS scores 22/100 (F grade). Full methodology at [Returns Score Methodology](https://ownyourmind.ai/resources/returns-score-methodology/).

**Token utility (4/20):** The framework is strong: over 19,000 GitHub stars, daily commits, MIT licensed, three minutes to a running agent. None of that has anything to do with the token. ELIZAOS has no staking mechanism, no fee accrual, no burns, and governance voting is not live. The token exists alongside the framework rather than being integrated into it. The L1 blockchain remains a roadmap item with no confirmed implementation. Walters declared the token dead on 4 August 2026 and ruled out a replacement, which retires that roadmap rather than making it less credible. You can use the entire ElizaOS framework without ever touching the token.

**Value accrual (2/20):** There's no clear mechanism by which framework adoption drives token value. The framework is open source and free to use. auto.fun generates some fees, but the connection to ELIZAOS token holders is undefined. The original "AI VC fund" thesis (where an AI agent autonomously manages investments) hasn't produced demonstrable returns. The DAO treasury value is unverified. This is the core problem: brilliant open-source adoption with zero value capture at the token layer.

**Supply dynamics (6/20):** The November 2025 migration expanded total supply by 40%, from 6.6 billion to 11 billion tokens. Original holders were diluted to fund SAFT investors (15%), team (10%), foundation (4.5%), and ecosystem (2.5%). At 11 billion tokens, the per-token value is highly diluted even at modest market caps. Vesting is enforced on-chain via Streamflow, which is a positive, but the dilutive expansion itself was decided unilaterally by the team without governance vote. That sets a precedent where supply can be expanded at management's discretion.

**Revenue sustainability (2/25):** There is no revenue model for the token. The framework is open source and generates no licensing fees. auto.fun is the closest thing to a revenue product, but its fee structure and relationship to the ELIZAOS token are not formalised. The "AI VC fund" has no published portfolio performance. This scores near the bottom because there is simply nothing to point to: no revenue, no fees, no concrete plan for either. The token economy runs on speculation and narrative momentum alone.

**Liquidity and access (8/15):** ELIZAOS trades on 10 active venues in an October 2026 CoinGecko read, after Crypto.com Exchange delisted it on 12 October.  Gate carries most of the flow, with Kraken the only other tier-1 name and a tail that rounds to nothing. The DEX quotes sit on Solana and BSC; no Ethereum or Base pool appears in the ticker set, which is a narrower footprint than the multi-chain framing implies.

Daily volume has fallen steeply from ATH levels, leaving thin order books and significant slippage risk. Turnover looks high as a ratio, but that reflects how far the market cap has fallen rather than any depth, so any position above a few thousand dollars faces meaningful execution challenges.

### Path to improvement

Three changes would materially increase ElizaOS's returns score:

1. **Ship the L1 blockchain with ELIZAOS as native gas token.** This is the single change that would most directly address the token utility vacuum. If every agent deployment, every transaction, and every governance vote requires ELIZAOS, then framework adoption finally drives token demand. Without this, the token remains a speculative sidecar to a good open-source project.
2. **Formalise auto.fun fee accrual to token holders.** Route a percentage of auto.fun launch fees to ELIZAOS stakers or implement a buy-and-burn mechanism funded by platform revenue. This creates a concrete, auditable link between platform activity and token value that doesn't currently exist.
3. **Publish DAO treasury holdings and investment performance.** The "AI VC fund" thesis was the original reason the token existed. If the fund has made investments, publish the portfolio. If it hasn't, retire the narrative. Transparency about what the treasury holds and how it has performed would either validate or honestly retire the founding thesis.

## Score change log

| Date | Score | Change | Reason |
| - | - | - | - |
| 2026-10-13 | Data | N/A | Crypto.com Exchange delisted ELIZAOS on 12 October, so active venues fall from 13 to 10, and total supply is now bound live after CCIP bridging moved the Solana figure. Liquidity & Access 8/15 held. |
| 2026-10-04 | Data | N/A | Product-in-practice sweep: dated the GitHub star count, added the halving of core npm downloads since June 2026, noted Eliza Cloud now redirects to eliza.app, and moved the class action and token-utility proposals to past tense. Scores unchanged. |
| 2026-10-04 | Data | N/A | elizaos.ai now 301-redirects to elizaresearch.ai (Eliza Research: a personal agent plus slop.cash, a USDC-paid contribution platform); product section notes it and the website field is updated. Scores unchanged. |
| 2026-09-24 | Data | N/A | Phase 5 sweep: star and fork counts refreshed from GitHub API, circulating share bound live (68% of max, not 79%), stale venue list and $86K depth figure replaced from CoinGecko tickers, price removed from cons, prose Returns total corrected 27 to 22. Scores unchanged. |
| 2026-09-23 | Data | N/A | Integrity records re-cut: 2 claims now quote elizaOS's own pages verbatim and 4 are our own measurements. Scores unchanged. |
| 2026-09-06 | Data | N/A | WS3b liquidity rail: the thin-book and micro-cap reading holds (13 venues, Gate 28%, Kraken the only other tier-1 name). The evidence string carried a hardcoded token price and the section a hardcoded book-depth figure; both restated structurally, and the chain list corrected to where it actually trades. Liquidity & Access 8/15 held. |
| 2026-09-05 | Data | N/A | §8e sweep. The product section still described Eliza Labs as closing; rewritten for the 4 August 2026 declaration that the token is dead, with buybacks and any replacement ruled out and the treasury gone to the settlement. |
| 2026-09-05 | Returns | Token Utility 8 → 4, Value Accrual 3 → 2 (Returns 27 → 22, F held) | The 8 was scoring roadmap utility (an L1 chain, governance voting) that the founder explicitly retired on 4 August 2026 when he declared the token dead and ruled out any replacement. Withdrawn intent should not keep scoring as latent utility. |
| 2026-09-05 | Data | N/A | September monthly review. The class action is recorded as settled rather than active, corroborated by The Block quoting Walters directly, and the Token Utility and Value Accrual evidence now says the token was declared dead with no replacement rather than describing wind-down uncertainty. Both dimensions moved down at the same review. |
| 2026-08-15 | Data | N/A | Fact strip rebound to the live source after the 78.62% figure drifted 10.6pp; CoinGecko reads 68.02% of max supply. |
| 2026-08-15 | Data | N/A | Circulating supply de-hardcoded into the live `<CirculatingSupply />` component, and the stale percentage corrected from 68% to 78.62% (CoinGecko). Supply Dynamics already scores the 40% dilutive expansion; no score change. |
| 2026-08-12 | Data | N/A | WS3 Solana on-chain reconciliation (1->4 verdicts). Read the canonical DuMb mint (CoinGecko still points ai16z at the retired HeLp mint): ~9.46B minted toward 11B via an SPL multisig (established), no freeze authority (established). Open-source confirmed (elizaOS/eliza MIT ~19k stars; match). Scores unchanged. |
| 2026-08-06 | Editorial | N/A | 4 Aug 2026: Shaw Walters declared the ELIZAOS token "dead" and the foundation closing, after its treasury was drained settling the Burwick class action; he keeps building the framework tokenless (CoinDesk, Tier-2). No score change: Returns already F (2.7/10, no value capture), Freedom unaffected (open-source continues). |
| 2026-07-06 | Editorial | N/A | Added a "The product in practice" section (per `specs/product-comparison-framework.md`): a widely-used framework with mixed DX and a broken value-capture-to-token story, sharpened by the Eliza Labs wind-down. No score change. |
| 2026-06-26 | Data | N/A | DefiLlama LlamaAI harvest cross-check, verified independently (CoinGecko + api.llama.fi). The snapshot cited ownyourmind.ai for the auto.fun fee-routing, zero-licensing-fees, and no-formalised-revenue-sharing points, so confirming our figures is the priority. Circulating 7.48B (68% of the 11B max) and price ~$0.0006 both hold. Resolved the supply conflict the harvest flagged: CoinGecko reports total ~8.69B, but our 13-June on-chain getTokenSupply read (~9.44B) is the authoritative figure we retain. No figure or score change. |
| 2026-06-13 | Data | N/A | Corrected the displayed token contract to the canonical ELIZAOS mint (Solana DuMbhu7mvQvqQHGcnikDgb4XegXJRyhUBfdU22uELiZA); the record previously showed the legacy AI16Z mint (HeLp6NuQ...) from before the November 2025 AI16Z to ELIZAOS migration. Verified against CoinGecko (elizaos, primary Solana SPL) and on-chain getTokenSupply (~9.44B, matches the recorded 9.38B total). Contract chip only; no prose or score change. |
| 2026-05-03 | Editorial | N/A | Major editorial reframe: Eliza Labs wind-down (Shaw Walters X post, 14 April 2026); SDNY class action (Case 1:26-cv-03238, filed 20 April 2026, Burwick Law on behalf of Gorka Pikabea et al. vs Shaw Walters, Eliza Labs Inc. et al.); Eliza Labs vs X Corp antitrust suit (Case 3:25-cv-07243-TSH, NDCA, filed August 2025, dismissed with prejudice December 2025); contributor count 583 to 355 per GitHub Insights (May 2026). Framework remains active (daily commits, 18,251 stars, v3 in beta), but company structure has materially changed. Token near ~$0.00055. No score change this cycle; June review will reassess Freedom Governance and Returns Token Utility / Value Accrual dimensions. |
| 2025-03-03 | Both | N/A | Initial publish. Freedom 52/100, Returns 27/100. |