The mechanism is similar to internet domain registration, which is indeed a feasible direction. However, the open and decentralized nature of blockchain currently presents some challenges for this solution. Below is a specific analysis:

---

## 1. Current Status of Blockchain Token Naming

On public chains like Ethereum, BSC, Solana, anyone can freely create tokens and name them arbitrarily, for example:

- The original token is called `ABC`, imitation tokens can be called `ABC2.0`, **`ABC Official`**, **`ABC V2`**, or even use Unicode special characters (like `ABC`, which looks the same but is actually different).

- Imitation tokens can even preemptively deploy tokens with the same name before the original project (for example, when Binance announces the launch of a token, but someone has already issued a fake coin in advance).

### Why is it currently ineffective to control?

- The openness of blockchain: Public chains (such as Ethereum, BSC) allow anyone to deploy smart contracts without a centralized institution reviewing token names.

- No unified naming standard: Different exchanges, wallets, and market platforms (such as CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko) have inconsistent naming rules for tokens, allowing imitation tokens to exploit loopholes.

- Cross-chain issues: Tokens with the same name can exist on different chains (for example, `ABC` on Ethereum and `ABC` on BSC may be completely different projects).

---

## 2. How to borrow the "domain name registration" mechanism to control token names?

The Domain Name System (DNS) uses a first-come, first-served + authoritative review approach to avoid duplication and malicious registration. A similar solution can be applied to token naming:

### (1) Establish a "Token Name Registration Center"

- A trusted third party (such as exchanges, industry alliances) maintains a "token name database", similar to ICANN (the Internet domain management agency).

- Project parties must register names before issuing tokens to prevent imitation token squatting.

- Example:

- Binance can launch a "Binance Certified Token Name System", allowing only projects that pass the review to use specific names.

- The Ethereum Foundation or Layer 2 networks (such as Optimism, Arbitrum) could launch on-chain naming services (similar to ENS, but specifically for tokens).

### (2) Name Locking at the Smart Contract Level

- Add "token name uniqueness verification" in smart contract standards (such as ERC-20, BEP-20):

- When deploying tokens, the contract checks whether the name has already been registered.

- If the name is already taken, deployment is prohibited (or risk is prompted).

- Challenge:

- Requires support from the underlying public chain (currently, Ethereum, BSC and others do not support this feature).

- May affect decentralization principles (requires an authoritative institution to manage names).

### (3) Mandatory Certification by Exchanges and Market Platforms

- Platforms like CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko can require:

- Tokens must undergo smart contract audits (such as CertiK, SlowMist).

- Token names must match official registration information, otherwise they will not be included.

- Exchanges (such as Binance) can:

- Only launch tokens that have undergone name certification.

- Mark warnings for imitation tokens (such as displaying "unverified").

---

## 3. Existing Similar Attempts

Currently, some projects have attempted to solve this issue:

### (1) Ethereum Name Service (ENS)

- ENS allows users to register `.eth` domain names and map them to wallet addresses.

- Similarly, a “.token” service can be developed, allowing project parties to register unique token names.

### (2) CoinMarketCap/CoinGecko's Certification Mechanism

- These platforms will conduct "official certification" for tokens (such as blue labels), but rely on manual review, which is inefficient.

### (3) Exchange Pre-registration Mechanism

- Exchanges like Binance, OKX can publicly announce token names and contract addresses before launching new coins, reducing confusion from imitation tokens.

---

## 4. Possible Issues and Challenges

| Solution | Advantages | Challenges |

|------|------|------|

| Token Name Registration Center | Reduces Imitation Token Squatting | Requires Industry Consensus, May Be Centralized |

| Smart Contract Name Locking | Technically Prevents Duplicate Names | Requires Public Chain Support, Affects Flexibility |

| Mandatory Certification by Exchanges | Directly Reduces Imitation Token Launches | Only Applicable to CEX, Cannot Control DEX |

---

## 5. Conclusion: Feasible Improvement Directions

1. Exchanges lead name certification (such as Binance launching an "official token name database").

2. Upgrade smart contract standards (such as ERC-20 v2 supporting name uniqueness checks).

3. Industry alliances establish naming standards (similar to DNS's ICANN).

4. Wallets and market platforms strengthen verification (automatically marking imitation tokens).

If these measures can be gradually implemented, token naming can become more standardized, **reducing the issue of scams using name confusion by imitation tokens**. However, industry collaboration and technological upgrades are still needed.