The coin-sharing dispute between Aave and WLFI. When I first saw the "20% revenue share + 7% token distribution" clause, it felt like it was written by a WLFI intern, not a deal the Trump family would sign. After all, Aave's partnership with Spark only offered a 10% revenue share. WLFI has the Trump brand backing, so it stands to reason that Aave would have to pay a premium to justify the deal. Even if WLFI was planning a public offering at the time, it wouldn't have come up with such poor terms. Later, as crypto took off, WLFI issued USD1, and the narrative shifted from "crypto bank" to "Aave + Circle," with a valuation 10x higher. After all, Trump wrote the "Art of the Deal," and this deal is absolutely disgraceful. The market's interpretation of WLFI's distribution as Aave's intrinsic value is completely one-sided and conjectural. Because neither proposal mentioned that WLFI would be allocated to the Aave treasury, it would primarily be for liquidity mining incentives, and Aave holders would not directly receive tokens. The scenario is likely to go something like this: WLFI completely abandons Aave, rendering the previous contract automatically invalid. The token distribution is significantly reduced. The allocated tokens are then used to incentivize USD1 lending and minting. This allows for a balanced, balanced return, and can be considered a subsidy for targeted stablecoin minting operations.