Interestingly, very recent publications related to the present study, also envisaging the possibility of 2c-1e bonds in polyiodides, decided to adopt a σ-hole/secondary bonding (rather than halogen bonding) general picture. We did the same stating we would shortly return on the matter. In particular, we notice here two main facts. First, the failure of all attempts to reduce polyiodide complexity to mere electrostatics was demonstrated in seminal 1960s studies. It does not really matter if we call them in the old-fashioned way of "nucleophilic bumps and electrophilic hollows" or in the new-wave "σ-lumps and σ-holes": the "static" σhole picture will hardly work for these soft systems since electron reorganisation is inherent to the formation of multicenter bonds, whose formation mechanism comprises up to three stages. Second, the choice of secondary bonding terminology, rather than halogen bonding, is interesting, as one can see how the nomenclature issue has become pressing for such systems and needs immediate attention. While we do agree that secondary bonding carries a superior generality (in terms of applicability to the periodic table) in comparison to the halogen bond, we still feel that secondary bond terminology is ultimately out of place here.