For this conversation the difference is therefore mostly moot, even if a few minor differences still remain in the consequences.
Perhaps you're correct, but I don't consider loss of entry a "minor" difference, my friend. That's why I suggest that people do the research and try to be a bit more precise. But yes, I was aware of the fee change.
Also worth noting, since people like to quibble about numbers, that I've consistently heard that the list doesn't actually include everyone who has parted w/their citizenship or green card. So, the true numbers could be anyone's guess.
Both of these paths cause a loss of right to enter the US. Neither one automatically bans re-entry if one otherwise qualifies to enter as an alien. I agree differences in these areas would be major.
The minor differences I know of: formal renunciation specifically for the purpose of avoiding taxes makes one inadmissible, but this purpose is so hard to prove and enforce that only a very small number of people (I forget precisely but around 2-5) have ever been ensnared by it. Also, renunciants are ineligible to possess firearms in the US, even if they'd otherwise be in one of the nonresident alien categories which would be allowed to.
Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value, they don't apply to former citizens who relinquish but don't renounce.
Courts probably haven't yet been asked to rule either way on this, but at the very least, I don't know a court ruling finding that all former citizens are covered by either provision.
I hope we can both easily agree that law should (almost) never be taken at face value. In my professional experience, the words mean what they mean until they mean something different.