Bjay 🥷

What if owning an NFT didn’t mean everyone had to know what was inside it? That’s an interesting problem @FungoLabs is approaching differently. With Fungo, an NFT can carry a card and traits whose values remain encrypted on-chain using Zama’s technology. Even during minting, the selection happens through encrypted randomness. Neither the buyer nor the studio can choose or manipulate the outcome. But the real distinction is what happens after you own it. The holder controls access to the information. You can decrypt your NFT’s values in your browser for your wallet, grant viewing access to another trusted wallet, or reveal selected traits publicly. Privacy gets even more interesting when you can prove something about an NFT without revealing its actual traits. For example, a game or buyer could verify that an NFT has a strength of at least 60 without seeing its exact strength. That opens up interesting possibilities for gaming, collectibles and digital assets where revealing everything isn’t always necessary. Fungo also extends this approach to auctions. Bids remain encrypted while the auction is open, meaning neither other bidders nor the team can see competing offers. Once bidding closes, the bids become public so anyone can verify the outcome. What I find compelling is the distinction between ownership and visibility. Owning something should give you control over what you reveal, not force you to expose everything. If NFTs can prove what they contain without exposing their underlying traits, what new possibilities could this unlock for on-chain gaming and digital ownership?

A token launch is easy to announce. Building an economic model around what happens after launch is a different challenge. That’s what made me take a closer look at @FungoLabs’ $FUNGO tokenomics. The supply is fixed at 10 billion $FUNGO, with no investors, no presale, no trading tax and no additional minting. But the distribution is where things get interesting. 36% goes to Genesis NFT holders, 7% to Zama OG holders, 3% to the X campaign, 10% to community growth, 10% to the team and 34% to liquidity. One detail worth highlighting: 46% of the entire supply is allocated to airdrops, split between Genesis NFT holders, Zama OG holders and X campaign participants. The X campaign alone has 300 million $FUNGO allocated. Then there’s the unlock schedule. 82.5% of the total supply is unlocked at TGE, while the remaining allocations follow their respective schedules until the entire supply is unlocked by month 48. The team’s 10% allocation has a 12-month lock before vesting over the following 36 months. But distribution is only one part of the model. Fungo also connects eligible launchpad revenue to $FUNGO and its Genesis NFT holders. The eligible platform fees follow a 20/20/60 split: 20% goes towards weekly $FUNGO buybacks and burns. Another 20% is distributed equally among Genesis NFT holders. The remaining 60% goes to the platform treasury. It’s worth noting that opening, proof and card fees go entirely to the treasury rather than following this split. There’s another layer to this: Genesis holders also receive a share of every token launched through the platform, with at least 5% of each drop token’s supply allocated to them. And $FUNGO has two defined utilities on the launchpad: staking for early access to sales and locking tokens to improve a collection’s position on Explore. What stands out to me is the connection between platform activity and token economics. More eligible launchpad activity can generate fees that feed into the buyback mechanism and Genesis NFT revenue sharing. That creates an economic link between platform performance and these mechanisms, although their actual impact depends on sustained activity and revenue. That’s the part I’ll be watching. Not just how $FUNGO launches, but how well the ecosystem can sustain the model behind it. @FungoLabs fungolabs.org/launchpad/toke…