A proposed framework, clearly distinguished from confirmed launch parameters.
Tokenomics describes supply, distribution, permissions and economic rules. The figures on this page are the proposed allocation per chain supplied for the PAYNOVA concept; they are not proof that either token has launched with those parameters. Each chain needs its own confirmed mint or contract, total supply, authority status and liquidity information. Until those details are published, all percentages remain a planning framework.
The proposed allocation is 80% public launch and liquidity, 5% community incentives, 5% ecosystem development, 5% marketing reserve and 5% team and contributors. The same proposal can be considered for each deployment, but that does not create one combined supply. Actual amounts depend on each chain’s independently confirmed total supply.
A Solana token is identified by its mint address and associated authorities. The mint authority, freeze authority, token program and launch configuration determine important control boundaries. Platform launch mechanics may constrain or change how allocations are implemented; no Pump.fun-specific allocation behavior is assumed here without confirmation.
A BNB Chain token is identified by its contract address and verified source code. Supply functions, ownership, roles, taxes, pausing and transfer restrictions should be reviewed in the deployed implementation. No Four.meme launch setting or dividend feature is asserted as available until the selected configuration is verified.
The 80% public launch and liquidity category needs a clear breakdown between tokens made available at launch and tokens actually paired or locked, if any. Community incentives, development and marketing reserves need separate wallets or transparent ledger entries. Allocation labels alone do not prove custody, vesting, spending limits or control.
A 5% team and contributor allocation is a proposal, not a vesting schedule. A credible schedule would disclose beneficiaries or categories, cliff, release cadence, contract or custodian, and any change permissions. Vesting reduces some immediate supply uncertainty but does not eliminate insider, execution or market risks.
A supply audit should state whether new tokens can be minted, whether accounts can be frozen, who can change metadata or fees, and whether those permissions can be revoked. On EVM, ownership and role-management functions need special attention; on Solana, mint and freeze authorities are key facts. An explorer label is not a security review.
Liquidity depth, pool ownership and lock arrangements affect how trading works, but they do not guarantee stability. The final launch method and allocation must be confirmed for each network. A user should be able to inspect the relevant pool, address and lock terms independently rather than relying on a website graphic.
Token supply can be misunderstood when decimals, chain context or multiple deployments are omitted. Proposed percentages may change before launch and must be versioned with an explanation. Nothing on this page is investment advice, a promise of utility or an assurance of profit. Check the current disclosure before making a decision.
Short answers. No assumptions.
No. The 80/5/5/5/5 split is proposed and must remain labeled as such until each actual launch is confirmed.
It is a proposal per chain. The two token supplies are independent and should be documented separately.
No audit is claimed on this page. Any audit statement should link to a published report and identify the exact code reviewed.
Explore the surrounding context, and verify every on-chain detail before acting.