Stani posted an article on the Aave forum these days, which can be considered as the partial end of this governance farce (but it is not yet over). "How AAVE will win" Several key contents that can be interpreted: The source of this governance dispute is alignment of interests. Stani has a clear attitude towards this and is willing to share non contractual income with AAVE holders, promising to submit a formal proposal. Personally, I think this is a good outcome. 2. Growth turning point of Aave Stani believes that Aave's current development path overly revolves around ETH, BTC collateralized lending, and circular leverage loops in special scenarios, but Aave's initial vision was to use smart contracts to support lending across almost all asset classes. This implies that the current DeFi lending market is approaching saturation, although there is still room for further growth. However, for Aave, the improvement is relatively limited, and Aave must also pursue larger market opportunities. The focus is on institutional markets and RWA, rather than borrowing from long tail assets. After all, in the current market environment, institutional markets and RWA assets are the directions with higher ceilings, while the on chain knockoff market is not as large and high-quality as in previous years. This should be an important strategic direction for Aave in the next stage from Stani's perspective, and the modular design of Aave V4 is also prepared for this strategic direction. V4 is positioned as a necessary condition for moving towards RWA/institutional/more complex credit models. Expanding to off chain assets, custodians, securities firms, and other scenarios will introduce new trust assumptions, which requires a modular architecture to "isolate" these risks. This structure already exists in many lending products, and Aave can be considered a supplement to the product structure, so there will be almost no blind spots in the future. 3. GHO Aave Labs has not given up on the stablecoin route, but rather repositioned GHO within a larger strategic framework. In the future, it is more likely to serve as a hub connecting RWA, institutional returns, and internal fund flows within Aave, rather than a single on chain stablecoin product. 4. Finally, why is it said to be a stage ending If the previous formal vote were the dividing line, this would be the outcome of the discussion at this stage. However, based on Zeller's response on the forum, DAO still insists on the view that Aave's strategic brand assets and entrance should belong entirely to DAO, and daily operations can be re authorized. At the same time, Zeller proposed a "term sheet" that Labs must answer in the next negotiation stage, such as how to transfer brand assets such as domain names, social media accounts, naming rights, trademarks, etc. Who is authorized to operate, the specific implementation plan for sharing profits, and dispute resolution and enforcement in case of breach of contract. In summary, he emphasized two things. Firstly, he emphasized the need for DAO to regain sovereignty. Secondly, he emphasized the need to turn everything into a procedural system and legal engineering, and then everyone should continue to follow the established rules.