The two examples of an Hodler you’ve given us actually correct and that is how an hodler and non-hodler be viewed as far as the bitcoin hodling is concerned and who an hodler is suppose to be or suppose to possess to quantify themselves as one. Leaving your coin on a custodial exchange means you don’t have control of the money but anytime the you can access your money in those exchanges without any cause for alarm, you may still be regarded as one. A non-custodial wallet is best for holding your bitcoin but most people today don’t even fancy it and stick to their exchange due to high transaction fees of moving the coin to an exchange, even though an hodler is not suppose to do such when they’re not ready to sell their holdings off.

Hmmm, that's pondering questions!!!
Who are the real HODLers?
If we elaborate on it by definition, then apparently Both are HODLers, whether he puts his assets in the custodial exchange or cold wallet. Because by words they both will be considered as a HODLer, but if we discuss this question in the language of crypto, then of course a real HODLer is someone who HODLs his assets for a long term with full of his hand. Like if someone has HODLed assets and he has stored these assets on a custodial exchange for a longer term, then without any hesitation he is not entitled to be called a real HODLer. A real HODLer is someone who stores his assets in a safe place like a cold wallet.

Although when you search for who is a Bitcoin Hodler, it will show you that it is someone who buys bitcoin and hodls for a long period of time before he sells the bitcoin. I mean, it won’t show you whether the person who uses an exchange to store bitcoin is not a holder, and the person who uses a non-custodial wallet  should be the one to consider as a hodler.

However, what I understand is that a bitcoin Hodler is someone who hodls bitcoin for a long period of time, and regardless of where it gets stored, I know that hodling in exchanges is not safe compared to the other non-custodial wallets. But I think that should be something different and not when you are defining who a holder is.

In as much as there is no second thought about the fact that once you actually have your funds in any centralized exchange you’re totally risking it because the chances of actually losing it is seriously high I think this doesn’t discredit the fact that the investor is not actually having a bitcoin. For me this person can be attributed to someone who stores his money in a traditional bank, the bank carries risk just like the centralized exchanges we have today but does that mean the customer isn’t having no money?

So for me he is an holder but a traditional holder which bitcoin has tried to actually help to eradicate by not trusting a third party but actually been your own bank. So the both are holders but one isn’t in the custodianship of his holdings

I don't make any distinctions on this matter. A holder is a holder, despite him storing his coins in a custodial or non-custodial wallet. The difference here is only regards the safety of the funds, which are always at risk when stored at third party platforms. The important is that the Bitcoin adopter is determined and enthusiastic about his investment. He has long term plans and is focused on waiting patiently for results to come in the right time.

If he still insist in storing his funds unsafely, it's just a matter of time until he matures the idea of purchasing a hardware wallet and improving his conduct as a holder.

By there, he shouldn't be discarded as a worthless investor by other holders.

Well, I kinda agree. Regrets usually come in the end but if we are good and responsible hodlers, we will never end up losing our coins. Same goes for those responsible exchanges, even if they are one keeping our coins but knowing they are not the real hodlers but us, they will still secure our coins without no intention of stealing it from us. However, it’s still better to save our coins on our own bank, thus having the full control of our private keys.

(Read as if I was some englishman narratiung a documentary) HODLERS are very complex & subtle creatures. They prefer to have "one bird in hand, rather than two in the bush" They are survivors and will do anything to keep the crypto that they have aquired. Even if it means battling off the friends, family, and wife to the death all the way to valhalla! HODLERs are extremely focused and convinced that Bitcoin will surpass even new ATHs for years and years and years to come.

If you're not the holder of your private key then you're not the holder of those coins. The exchange could decide to block your account and if you fail to meet up the KYC requirements you might end up losing your coins. The best way to hold your coins is when you have full control over your private key and coin its safer that way. Considering the risk of losing your coin, why would anyone still go ahead to make such decisions. Coins should be kept in an exchange for the purpose of exchange and then moved to your noncustodial wallet. People loss access to their coins because they fail to meet these requirements and yet more person still take the risk to store their coins in an exchange.  Bitcoin was created so we can have full control access without invoking a third party, so making use of an exchange is overriding the purpose to which it was built for.

Yeah, in crypto, this what applies the definition of a holder, long term holder who has total control of your Bitcoin as you have the private keys and mnemonic phrase and you and you alone knows what it is.

It's not something that you keep to those exchanges, as they have the private key and there are times that there could be issues as they have the power to halt the withdrawal of your own coin. Or worst, the exchange was hacked and you lost all your cryptos. So there's no compromise in the middle here as far as HODLer means for Bitcoiners.