TLDR: We should revise our events naming strategy because the way we do it now does not adequately convey important info.
This is a short post expressing an opinion I hold having organised EAGxBoston, attended CEA's events retreat, and continue on providing advice to other EAGx organisers.
EAG vs EAGx:
It is worth having a discussion or getting some clarification about what the “x” in EAGx stands for.
In the past, it seems like the community has typically considered EAGxs to be an event which is smaller in scale, less professionally organized, and aimed at a different audience compared to EAGs (maybe EAGs are for highly engaged and/or experienced members of the community, whereas EAGxs are for those who are newer to EA, like people who had just completed an intro fellowship). 
However a different interpretation of the distinction between the two might be seen similarly to the distinction between TED and TEDx events, where the “x” just denotes that the event is independently organized by people not employed by TED.
It is worth sorting this out because if we plan on having a lot more EA conferences and events in the coming years, we should make it clear to potential organizers and attendees what their options are.
If the “x” is to denote non-CEA organized events, then we should create a signal for the level of engagement of the event (if that should continue to be a thing) – maybe EAGxSummit for highly engaged/experienced members, and EAGxConference for newer members.
Cause Area specificity
Another thing to probably start thinking about is a list of topic tags which can be affixed to the end of conference names, now that members of the community are thinking about cause-area-specific events – e.g. The 2024 EAGx Bio Summit, The 2030 EAGx AI Conference.
I hope that the level of professionalism and polish of EAGxBoston 2022 will reset the EA community’s expectation/understanding of the “x” in EAGx, and that EAs of all levels of experience and professionalism will be more excited to attend EAGxs in the future.