In brief, according to Manjón and coworkers, the success of the metavalent bonding model is that bonds in PCMs are soft and directional electron-deficient bonds, while its pitfall is that it does not consider the multicenter character of the 2c-1e bond. When the multicenter character of the bond is considered, the metavalent bonding model becomes naturally the electron-deficient multicenter bonding model, in such a way that the term "metavalent" is no longer necessary since metavalent bonding is not a brand-new bonding type. On the other hand, the success of the hypervalent (electron-rich multicenter) bonding model resides in the discovery of the multicenter character of the bonds in PCMs that leads to hypercoordinated linear bonding motifs. However, Manjón and coworkers have shown that these linear motifs can be found in both electron-rich and electrondeficient molecules and solids . Therefore, the term "hypervalent" is no longer valid and should be replaced by "hypercoordinated". In any case, the main pitfall of the hypervalent bonding model resides in that it considers that the bond in PCMs is electronrich and not electron-deficient. If this consideration is discarded, the electron-rich multicenter bonding model becomes in a natural way the electron-deficient multicenter bonding model.