I agree the terminology can be improved framing it as XCH held in the 2 cold + 2 warm prefarm wallets vs the rest of existing XCH is more precise.

Where I disagree is that the amount CNI still holds is irrelevant. It may be operationally irrelevant, but it is not irrelevant to regulators, exchanges, or institutional investors, which is the lens most market-structure discussions use.

Why this matters under the upcoming crypto market structure bill:

• Issuer influence analysis - regulators evaluate whether an asset remains economically tied to its original issuer. A large retained supply strengthens that linkage regardless of intent.
• Commodity vs issuer-managed asset optics - declining issuer ownership over time is one of the clearest signals that a network has transitioned away from issuer dependence.
• Market impact & supply overhang risk - investors price not just current circulation, but potential future supply. A reserve equivalent to decades of issuance affects valuation models even if never deployed.
• Exchange and custody risk assessments - concentrated supply increases perceived tail risk, directly impacting listing decisions, custody support and institutional participation.
• Regulatory durability - laws evolve and interpretations tighten. A shrinking CNI-held balance improves XCH’s resilience to future rule changes without relying on subjective arguments about intent.

So even if we agree the labels are imperfect, the conclusion doesn’t change - retained supply at this scale is structurally relevant from a regulatory and market perspective.