Hello, after my post was removed by the r/rust moderators, I decided to share it myself.

  
I've been thinking about something that's becoming more noticeable as the Rust ecosystem keeps growing.

With the rise of AI-assisted development, both experienced Rust developers and newcomers are publishing crates at an incredible pace. I don't think that's a bad thing—in fact, it's great to see the ecosystem expanding.

However, I recently ran into a problem that made me question whether [crates.io](http://crates.io) should evolve.

Yesterday I wanted to use the `h3` crate, but I accidentally installed `http3` instead. The names are so similar that I didn't notice my mistake until later. It made me wonder:

**Should** [**crates.io**](http://crates.io) **start verifying well-established, production-ready crates with something like a blue or green verification badge?**

This could help developers quickly distinguish between widely trusted crates and similarly named alternatives.

Another issue is crate name squatting.

For example, if you search for `http3`, you'll find a crate with that exact name. The README simply says that the project is currently in the design phase and invites people to collaborate. There is no implementation yet, but the crate name has already been claimed.

This means one of the most obvious names for an HTTP/3 crate is effectively unavailable to anyone else.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to reserve names for future projects, but should there be some policy around inactive crates or obvious name squatting? For example:

* Verification badges for trusted/production crates.
* Policies for reclaiming abandoned or placeholder crate names.
* Better warnings when installing crates with names very similar to popular ones.

What do you think? Have you ever installed the wrong crate because of a similar name, or run into issues caused by crate name squatting?

Lousy Rust Crates and the Ability for Anyone to Choose Any Name They Want