“…As major design criteria, the ideal ligands would be (1) readily synthesized or commercially available, (2) low costing, (3) modular, and (4) general . The selected amide ligands are divided into five classes: (a) commercially‐available TMU ( 1 ) and N‐methyl‐succinimide ( 2 ); (b) N‐sterically‐differentiated benzamide derivatives in the series Me ( 3 ), Et ( 4 ), i ‐Pr ( 5 ) as well as their N‐alicyclic morpholinyl ( 6 ), pyrrolidinyl ( 7 ) and piperidinyl ( 8 ) analogues; (c) electronically‐varied 4‐MeO‐ ( 9 ) and 4‐CF 3 ‐benzamides ( 10 ), sterically‐varied 2‐Me‐benzamide ( 11 ), chelating 2‐carboxamido‐benzamide ( 12 ); (d) aliphatic amides in the dimethylacetamide series, including DMAC ( 13 ), DEAC ( 14 ) as well as sterically‐varied 1° (C 9 H 19 ‐, 15 ), 2° ( i ‐Pr, 16 ), and 3° (ad, 17 ) analogues; (e) chelating aliphatic morpholinyl amide ( 18 ) and 2‐methoxyethylbenzamide ( 19 ) as well as resonance reduced N−Me‐anilide ( 20 ) and N,N‐dimethylbenzenesulfonamide ( 21 ). Our previous studies identified cyclic ureas DMPU ( 23 ) and DMI ( 24 ) as O‐coordinating amide‐type donors due to increased N lp to C=O conjugation (O‐basicity) from both nitrogen atoms as well as ring‐expanded N‐methyl‐caprolactam ( 25 ) adopting sterically‐minimized chair‐like conformation (Figure f).…”