The upcoming Token Name Protection is a great initiative — it promotes fairness and prevents copycats from confusing new users. However, there are some potential weak spots that could unintentionally create ambiguity and even risk for buyers. Here are a few points to consider: 1. Easy Manipulation of Holder Count Scammers can easily distribute small amounts of tokens to 100 wallets (bot or self buy using 100 wallet) to artificially trigger protection. This gives them early “brand” control without real community traction. 2. False Sense of Legitimacy Once a token name is “protected,” new users might assume it’s verified or officially recognized by the platform — even if it’s a manipulated or low-quality project. That perception could mislead early buyers. 3. Ambiguity Between Fair and Free Mode Since protection applies across both Fair and Free Mode, a bad actor could pre-register similar names in one mode to block future legitimate launches in the other. This could create unnecessary friction for honest creators. 4. Lack of Multi-Metric Validation Using only the holder count as the protection trigger might not reflect real adoption. Metrics like transaction activity, liquidity, or wallet diversity could add better accuracy and prevent abuse. 5. Risk of Frozen Creativity The 72-hour lock might unintentionally slow down the creation of genuine meme tokens that coincidentally share similar names — especially in fast-moving meme trends where timing is everything. Overall, the intention behind this feature is strong — it promotes originality and fairness. But to truly make it effective, it should combine anti-manipulation safeguards and clear public indicators that help users differentiate between protected, genuine, and suspicious tokens. Still, amazing to see Four.Meme pushing for higher transparency and structure in the meme token ecosystem. 💚