what tradeoffs does this have compared to something like Tailscale?

Pilot is per-agent/process, not per-machine. On one host, you can run many independent agents, each with a permanent virtual address. Separate trust handshakes/revokes (one agent trusts peer X, another doesn’t). Scope is to give agents a "phonebook" (discovery + permanent addresses) + direct reachability for messages, data streams, pub/sub, HTTP/gRPC, or even tunneled legacy TCP via gateway. Tailscale wins if you want to create a private net, or expose stuff via Funnel.

docker compose locally? and if it is locally, there is already an amount of trust there

I mean yeah. But for message passing across different local networks, with NAT, or different network conditions, you couldn’t pull it off. Scope is to have my OpenClaw instance have an address(say 0:0000.0000.0008), and you have another instance(0:0000.0000.000A). If they want to coordinate, exchange files, perform actions, I can: 1. Set up some form of site-to-site/ZT VPN between our networks, or something more old school like Hamachi and have them talk. 2. Have some form of platforms/websites where they can share data freely. Both require some prior agreement as to either a protocol/platform. Pilot allows for both reachability and exchange. Operating a bit lower than application layer such that it can work with more or less anything.

We already have emerging protocols for agent to agent comms coming from the big players. That's what's going to get adopted.

I have similar capabilities in my agent setup, but I'm sticking to established tech and contemporary "standards"

You asked for feedback, it's better to follow up with clarifying questions than retorts or explanations.

Fair, I respect that.