I just got a paper accepted without revisions in a prestigious journal. This is of course nice. Reading the referee report makes me a bit worried, though. It is clear that the referee has gotten the basic ideas of the paper, and has identified what we also think is the primary contribution. It is, however, also clear that quite a lot of details regarding the implications of the primary result, were not correctly understood by the referee.
What actions should I take from here? I of course want the paper published, but I am worried that people in general will misunderstand the parts about implications. Should I contact the editor and ask for another reviewer? Should I ask permission to re-write that part of the paper? Or should I just shut up and be happy to be accepted without revisions?