Interesting take from Stani. I think there's more insight here than "monolithic lending market guy likes monolithic lending markets." The point he's making is that whether or not permissionless pools are isolated from a financial risk perspective in a modular lending market, they're not sufficiently isolated form a brand risk perspective. If I were Euler or Morpho I would at least weigh the option of branding non-core markets differently. But, I kind of disagree with the fundamental premise. Brand trust is important, but I actually think the financial realities are more important. E.g. more efficient liquidiations on @eulerfinance were a driving force behind extremely rapid growth. Most users don't care about that kind of incremental improvement in efficiency but the largest players do. Because the sophistication of a player, how much they care about the details of financial structure, and their size at least broadly correlate, I think the best financial design is the most important thing -- that in the ultimate analysis the permissionless pools of modular lending protocols being isolated from a risk perspective is what matters. Not that I'm not bullish Aave -- I am -- at some point some large player (probably a new player from TradFi) is going to be the first one to borrow $1B onchain and they will do that on Aave. But, I think projects like Euler are going to continue seeing stronger growth because of superior financial design details made possible by their architecture.