The next-generation evolution of the MEME platform: as Pump.fun and Four.meme focus on “token issuance,” PFund has begun reshaping the “holding coins/tokens” experience

In 2024, Pump.fun completed an industrial revolution in the MEME market on Solana.

It pushed the threshold for token issuance to the limit—anyone, no coding required, no pre-sale, pays a small amount of SOL, and within 60 seconds can issue a token, automatically priced through Bonding Curve, immediately entering the trading phase. This paradigm generated hundreds of millions of dollars in protocol cumulative revenue within half a year and spawned a comparable copycat, Four.meme, on BNB Chain.

In October 2025, Four.meme’s single-day protocol fees surpassed Pump.fun, reaching $1.18 million, establishing its leading position on BNB Chain. Data from these two platforms verified that the MEME market has a large and continuously strong user demand.

However, this model also exposed a structural flaw, which is directly reflected in the massive loss data of retail investors.

Limitations of Pump.fun and Four.meme

Under Pump.fun’s graduation mechanism, after tokens migrate from the internal Bonding Curve to external DEXes, the probability of rug/pull scams skyrockets to about 99%, because early profit-seeking users tend to sell off en masse after graduation. Over 99% of tokens quickly become worthless post-graduation, mainly due to the platform’s incentive structure naturally encouraging short-term speculation.

Four.meme faces a similar dilemma. In February 2025, one of its tokens was attacked via a smart contract vulnerability, losing about $15,000. A deeper issue is that the platform’s revenue model is structurally decoupled from user interests: the platform earns profits through fees, while users bear all price volatility risks, lacking a shared interest foundation.

This exposes the core contradiction in the entire sector: MEME platforms solve the token issuance threshold problem but completely ignore the long-term rights and interests of token holders. The extremely low threshold results in less than 1% of tokens successfully “graduating,” while the remaining 99% become short-term speculative targets, causing user losses and wasting on-chain resources.

Key Dimensions of the Three Major Platforms Compared

Comparison Dimension

Pump.fun

Four.meme

PFund

Operating Chain

Solana

BNB Chain

BNB Chain

Source of User Returns

Pure AMM price speculation

Pure AMM price speculation

AMM price speculation + continuous dividend from fund pool (fees, lending, taxes)

Position Guarantee Mechanism

None

None (LP lock only prevents rug pulls, no yield guarantee)

50% of funds permanently enter PFund’s fund pool, appreciating with trading

Lending Functionality

None

None

Yes, zero interest, no liquidation mechanism

Creator Incentives

One-time reward of 0.5 SOL

Limited fee sharing

Ongoing fees + lending fee sharing, ratio set freely by creator within 0-20%, permanently on-chain

Promotion Incentives

None

None

Permanent 20% promotion points bonus, on-chain accounting

User Protection After Graduation

No mechanism, relies on market self-regulation

No mechanism, relies on market self-regulation

PFund’s fund pool and AMM pool move in tandem; transferring AMM tokens also transfers fund pool rights

Smart Contract Audit

No comprehensive public audit report

Faced a vulnerability attack in 2025

Independent audit in May 2026, zero critical/high-risk vulnerabilities, all 15 core invariants verified

Generation Evolution of Token Issuance and Holding Logic

Pump.fun and Four.meme are typical “token issuance platforms,” with core goals to optimize token issuance efficiency. But they fail to cover the lifecycle management after asset sale. On these platforms, the holding period after “buy-in” is purely a risk exposure period. Price stagnation yields no profit, price drops lead to losses, and without protocol-level revenue mechanisms, holders face extremely high uncertainty.

PFund offers a systematic solution. Its dual-pool architecture gives buy-in funds dual utility from the start: AMM positions provide price elasticity, and PFund’s fund pool continuously captures trading fee income. The larger the market trading volume, the faster the fund pool appreciates; even if AMM prices stagnate, the passive income from the fund pool can form a safety cushion. This is a systematic upgrade from “token issuance logic” to “holding logic” in the MEME sector.

Reconstruction of Creator Incentive System

In Pump.fun, the entire incentive for issuers is limited to a one-time reward of 0.5 SOL upon token graduation.

In PFund’s mechanism, creators can set the transaction fee split (0-20%) and lending fee split (0-20%) when deploying pools. Once parameters are set, they are permanently enforced by smart contracts. Every transaction and loan during the pool’s lifespan provides continuous cash flow for creators. This design upgrades token issuance into a long-term asset operation, fundamentally changing creators’ motivations, encouraging long-term development and promotion, and curbing short-term harvesting tendencies.

Conclusion

Pump.fun and Four.meme, as benchmarks of the MEME Market 1.0 era, confirmed market potential but also revealed the ceiling of the model. PFund redefines holder rights through on-chain protocols, building a stable value return channel for the entire ecosystem via the fund pool dividend mechanism, achieving a structural breakthrough over existing models. The next phase of core benefits in this sector will flow toward protocols that truly realize the interests of token holders through collaborative platforms.