In a Q&A about filing blockchain information services, a clear requirement was given for service names: they must be specific and must not exaggerate the scope of their intended use.
This requirement comes from filing Q&A content relayed in an Odaily news flash and concerns the service name itself as entered when submitting a filing.
· The source provides only this naming guideline; it does not specify which entities it applies to, the stage at which it should be submitted, or the consequences of review. Its scope is limited to how the name is worded.
If you were naming a blockchain service, would you first spell out its specific functions, or first limit the scope of its intended use?
This requirement comes from filing Q&A content relayed in an Odaily news flash and concerns the service name itself as entered when submitting a filing.
· The source provides only this naming guideline; it does not specify which entities it applies to, the stage at which it should be submitted, or the consequences of review. Its scope is limited to how the name is worded.
If you were naming a blockchain service, would you first spell out its specific functions, or first limit the scope of its intended use?
