In view of the present controversy regarding the nature of the unconventional bonding in PCMs and the merits of the two current bonding models, we will name hereafter this unconventional bond as "metavalent multicenter bond (MMB)". In this manuscript, we try to understand the nature of MMB and show in section 4 that MMBs are equivalent to EDMBs. However, it must be noted, before addressing the above issue, that dispute regarding the two bonding models in PCMs started much earlier than shown in the preceding paragraphs. With the change of the millennium, Hoffmann and coworkers studied several Sb-based molecules and compounds with linear bonds in one (1D), two (2D), and three dimensions (3D) . In particular, they suggested that the simple cubic (sc) phase of Sb should show ERMBs . This is in line with the views of Kolobov and coworkers , Dronkowski and coworkers , Lee and Elliot , and Jones , and against the position of Wuttig and coworkers, who considered that this phase (sc) of a single element (Sb) shows the same metavalent ─previously resonant─ bonds as PCMs . Similarly, Lubchenko and coworkers reported the presence of multicenter bonds in Bi2Te3 , unlike Wuttig and coworkers, who later considered the presence of metavalent bonds in all tetradymite-like V2-VI3 chalcogenides . In other words, the dispute regarding the nature of the unconventional bonding in PCMs and in octahedrally-coordinated pnictogens goes beyond the two current research teams that have supported their claims in 2023.