January 19, 2026 — Trove Markets Scam Allegations erupted across the crypto community after detailed accusations surfaced claiming ICO manipulation, undisclosed token dumping, and a post-fundraise pivot that abandoned the project’s original Hyperliquid-based roadmap. The controversy has severely damaged trust in Trove Markets ahead of its planned token generation event, reviving broader concerns around transparency and accountability in DeFi fundraising.
High Signal Summary For A Quick Glance
- Trove is accused of running an ICO scam and dumping tokens after fundraising.
- The project allegedly pivoted from Hyperliquid to Solana shortly after the raise.
- More than $10M in HYPE was reportedly sold from a project-controlled wallet.
- Claims include Polymarket manipulation and the use of paid shills to shape sentiment.
- ICO investors seeking refunds or remediation following alleged misconduct.
- KOLs and promoters facing backlash for shilling and reputational damage.
- The Hyperliquid community feeling exploited due to the alleged pivot and treasury sales.
- Traders exposed to manipulated markets, sudden dumps, and liquidity shocks.
Background on Trove Markets
Trove Markets launched in late 2025 as a decentralized perpetual exchange aiming to bring leverage trading to non-traditional assets such as collectibles, real-world assets (RWAs), equities, and prediction markets. The project initially positioned itself as “Hyperliquid-native,” planning to deploy perpetual markets using Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework.
Central to this positioning was Trove’s acquisition of 500,000 $HYPE tokens, required as a slashable security bond to launch a HIP-3 exchange. This alignment drew strong interest from the Hyperliquid community and helped fuel early hype around Trove’s testnet and upcoming ICO.
<<-tweet-2012968741475176835->>
Trove Markets Scam Allegations: What Sparked the Backlash
The Trove Markets scam allegations gained traction after a viral X thread accused the team of orchestrating a coordinated bait-and-switch. According to critics, Trove leveraged Hyperliquid’s reputation to attract capital, only to pivot away once funds were secured.
Key accusations include:
- Artificially inflating testnet activity through botting
- Paying undisclosed KOLs via discounted “angel” allocations
- Extending and retracting ICO deadlines to maximize capital inflows
- Dumping $HYPE tokens acquired for HIP-3 staking
- Redirecting funds toward promotion, prediction markets, and unrelated activity
The ICO, initially targeting $2.5 million, reportedly raised over $11.5 million between January 8 and January 11, 2026, with a full unlock promised at TGE.
Relative positioning of Trove scam allegations versus prior Trove milestones and comparable responses from competing perp DEX projects
Hyperliquid Exit and On-Chain Dumping Claims
The most damaging element of the Trove Markets scam allegations centers on on-chain evidence showing large $HYPE sales from wallets linked to the project. Analysts tracking Hypurrscan data identified transactions totaling roughly $10–12.9 million in $HYPE sold shortly after the ICO.
Shortly after these sales, Trove announced that its “liquidity partner” had withdrawn the required $HYPE tokens, making the HIP-3 launch impossible. The team then revealed a pivot to Solana, effectively abandoning the Hyperliquid-based roadmap that justified the original raise.
Critics argue that without $HYPE, Trove’s core value proposition collapsed, turning the ICO into a capital extraction event rather than a product-backed raise.
ICO Manipulation and Prediction Market Controversy
Additional scrutiny emerged around alleged manipulation of Polymarket prediction markets tied to Trove’s ICO outcome and FDV. Observers claim the team briefly announced an ICO extension later reversed causing sharp market swings that insiders could exploit.
On-chain investigators reported funds moving from investor wallets to Polymarket-related addresses, raising questions about whether ICO proceeds were used to influence betting markets and narratives rather than product development.
These claims intensified calls for third-party investigations and refund guarantees.
