The Trove launch was the talk for weeks and when it did happen, it became a bigger talking point with scam allegations all over socials.
Author: Sahil Thakur
The Trove launch was the talk of the town for many weeks and when it did happen, it became a bigger talking point with scam allegations all over socials.
The token launched in early January 2026 amid heavy hype, bold promises, and aggressive influencer promotion, positioning the project as a revolutionary collectibles-focused DeFi platform. The ICO raised roughly $11.5 million, largely fueled by undisclosed paid shilling, optimistic claims about Hyperliquid integration, and fear-driven retail demand.
Days before launch, the team abruptly abandoned Hyperliquid, switched to Solana, and altered the core roadmap without investor consent. When trading began, the token collapsed by nearly 98% within minutes, wiping out most investor value. On-chain data later showed large insider-linked asset sales, including millions in dumped HYPE tokens, while only a small fraction of ICO funds were refunded. Investigations, potential legal action, and influencer fallout followed, with many investors labelling the event an exit-style scam marked by deception, misrepresentation, and a breakdown of trust at every stage of the token sale.
Trove Markets, often called TROVE, positioned itself as a new kind of crypto platform. It focused on collectibles and decentralized finance. More specifically, Trove wanted to build a decentralized perpetual futures exchange for collectibles.
The idea sounded simple on the surface. Users could speculate on the prices of popular items. These included rare Pokémon cards and Counter-Strike 2 weapon skins. Instead of buying the items directly, traders would take leveraged positions on their future prices.
In effect, Trove tried to merge two fast-growing trends. The first was collectibles investing. The second was leveraged crypto trading. By combining both, the platform promised higher potential gains. Of course, it also introduced higher risks. This structure mirrored traditional futures markets, but it applied them to nontraditional assets.
From the beginning, Trove attracted serious attention. Part of this came from its ambitious vision. Another part came from its reported backing. Trove was said to be incubated by Paradigm, a major crypto venture firm. In 2021, it reportedly raised $35 million at a valuation of around $400 million.
These details suggested strong confidence from experienced investors. However, the team behind the project stayed anonymous. The founder used the pseudonym “Unwise.” Other core contributors also avoided public identification.
This approach is common in crypto. Still, it creates challenges. When problems arise, accountability becomes unclear. As a result, Trove’s mix of big-name backing, community excitement, and anonymous leadership drew heavy scrutiny once issues appeared.
On 8 January 2026, Trove launched its Initial Coin Offering. The sale introduced the native $TROVE token. It took place on Hyperliquid (something that would change later).
By January 11, 2026, Trove had raised about $11.5 million. The fundraising narrative focused on deep integration with Hyperliquid. As part of that plan, Trove needed to stake a large amount of HYPE tokens.
At first, interest surged. Many investors believed the Hyperliquid connection added credibility. However, confusion soon followed. The team briefly announced a five-day extension to the sale. They claimed it would improve token distribution.
Shortly after, they reversed the decision. The sale returned to its original schedule. This sudden change raised concerns. It also fueled speculation about internal decision-making.
At the same time, Trove pushed a strong influencer campaign. Many crypto personalities promoted the project across social media. These posts created excitement and strong fear of missing out.
Later, troubling details emerged. Several influencers had received payment. Others were allegedly offered discounted token allocations. In many cases, these arrangements were not disclosed.
One influencer, known as Wale Moca, received $8,000 for promotion. He did not mention the payment publicly. Another figure, CBB, received private messages offering special terms to promote the ICO.
Once these facts surfaced, community sentiment shifted. Anger replaced enthusiasm. Ethical concerns followed. Combined with the ICO confusion and unusual market speculation, skepticism grew just before the token generation event.
The launch came slightly later than planned. It also came with a major surprise.
Instead of debuting on Hyperliquid, the token launched on Solana. The team announced this change only days before trading began. Trove explained the move as an operational issue. A key liquidity partner had withdrawn a commitment of 500,000 HYPE tokens. Those tokens were required to operate on Hyperliquid.
Because of this, the team claimed it had no choice. According to the founder, Unwise, Trove would rebuild its perpetual DEX on Solana from scratch. This sudden pivot shocked many investors.
For some, the change altered the project entirely. They believed they had funded a Hyperliquid-based platform. As a result, calls for refunds appeared almost immediately across social media.
Src: CMC
Trading finally opened around January 18, 2026, on a Solana-based exchange. The reaction was brutal. Within minutes, $TROVE lost more than 95% of its value.
Market data showed a rapid collapse. The fully diluted valuation dropped from roughly $20 to $21 million to under $1 million. In practical terms, the token erased about 97 to 98% of its value almost instantly.
Liquidity played a major role. Trading pools held very little depth. As soon as early buyers tried to exit, the price collapsed further. Each sale pushed the token lower.
Investors quickly shared their losses. One reported that a $20,000 position fell to about $600. Another said a $10,000 investment shrank to just $285. The shock spread fast.
Such a rapid collapse rarely happens without consequences. Speculation exploded across the community. Many asked the same questions. Was this a rug pull? Did insiders dump tokens? Or did panic selling take over?
While the full mechanics remain complex, several warning signs stood out. First, the last-minute blockchain switch damaged trust. Second, on-chain activity raised deeper concerns.
Data later suggested that wallets linked to the Trove team sold large amounts of assets. Within 24 hours of announcing the pivot, the team reportedly sold around $10 million worth of HYPE tokens.
These tokens were no longer needed after abandoning Hyperliquid. Still, the timing mattered. The sale angered Hyperliquid supporters. More importantly, it strengthened the belief that insiders protected their own positions while $TROVE holders absorbed the losses.
Src: X (@ysbka)
In the hours following the crash, anger spread fast. Early Trove backers flooded X and Telegram with complaints. Many openly called the project a scam or a rug pull.
The speed of the collapse shocked investors. The token had imploded despite heavy pre-sale hype. As a result, many assumed insiders had profited while the community absorbed the losses.
Critics highlighted several red flags. The team changed plans at the last minute. Transparency remained limited. The project raised millions yet delivered little. On top of that, the marketing now looked misleading rather than organic.
Together, these factors shattered trust. For many, the collapse confirmed their worst fears.
Attention soon shifted to influencers who promoted Trove. As people dug deeper, uncomfortable facts emerged. Several influencers had received payment from Trove. They failed to disclose these deals.
This behavior violated ethical standards. In some regions, it may have broken promotion laws. The case of Wale Moca drew particular attention. He had promoted Trove heavily. After public pressure, he admitted Trove paid him $8,000. He claimed the payment was not directly for the ICO. Still, he apologized for not disclosing it.
More evidence followed. Screenshots showed a Trove representative messaging influencers like CBB. The messages offered commissions or discounted tokens in exchange for promotion.
These revelations confirmed what skeptics suspected. Much of the excitement was manufactured. Many investors felt misled by a coordinated marketing campaign that mimicked genuine enthusiasm.
The backlash reached beyond retail forums. Well-known investigators also stepped in. On-chain analyst ZachXBT published findings that intensified concerns.
He traced suspicious fund movements linked to Trove’s developers. One transaction showed about $45,000 from ICO funds sent to a known crypto casino deposit address. Some reports misstated the amount. Still, the implication remained serious.
These findings raised difficult questions. Were developers misusing investor funds? Were they gambling with capital meant for development?
Additional allegations followed. Some funds appeared to move through mixers or centralized exchanges shortly after the crash. This pattern often aims to obscure transaction trails.
By this point, trust had collapsed. Investors felt betrayed financially and ethically.
Under mounting pressure, the Trove team responded publicly. On January 20, they released a statement across official channels.
They denied running an exit scam. They claimed the project would continue. According to the team, Trove was not disappearing. They insisted they were not taking the money and running.
The developers defended the move to Solana. They said the Hyperliquid setback forced their hand. They also stated that all funds were accounted for. Above all, they asked the community for patience.
However, these assurances failed to calm investors.
What most backers wanted was simple. They wanted refunds. Many argued the team had changed the core roadmap. The shift away from Hyperliquid altered the investment thesis.
Some investors requested refunds even before launch. Trove eventually offered partial refunds. This decision sparked a new wave of anger.
Out of roughly $11.5 million raised, the team refunded only about $2.4 to $2.5 million. They kept around $9.4 million in the treasury. In practice, most investors recovered only 10 to 20 percent of their original contribution.
Many viewed this as unacceptable. One investor summed it up bluntly – “People did not invest in an ICO to fund a Solana launch”. Calls for full refunds grew louder.
The team defended its choice. They argued that keeping most of the funds was necessary to build a working product. According to them, this was the only way Trove could survive.
In leaked private messages, the founder also downplayed larger refunds. He suggested much of the money sat with a market maker and could not be recovered quickly.
These explanations did little to help. From the community’s view, the team should have consulted investors before pivoting. Many believed refunds should come first, not product development.
Critics went further. They argued the team effectively rewarded itself after failure. As a result, many began calling the situation an eight-figure scam.
The partial refund decision became the breaking point. It divided the community. It also erased nearly all remaining goodwill.
After the collapse, the situation escalated quickly. Crypto communities began organizing. Many investors started looking for accountability.
Some backers discussed a possible class-action lawsuit. The claims focus on fraud and misrepresentation. At least one law firm, Burwick Law, publicly invited affected investors to explore compensation options.
So far, no confirmed lawsuit has reached court. Still, legal pressure continues to build. The public nature of these discussions signals growing seriousness. Trove’s team now faces real legal risk, not just online criticism.
Industry players also reacted. The Hyperliquid Foundation reportedly funded an independent investigation into Trove. The goal is to determine intent versus incompetence.
Hyperliquid brought in blockchain investigators and auditors. ZachXBT joined the effort. Their work focuses on the HYPE token dump and the $TROVE collapse.
Hyperliquid has strong incentives here. Trove’s sale happened on its platform. The $10 million HYPE sell-off hurt both price and reputation. If investigators find fraud, further action may follow. Regulatory referrals remain possible.
Community sleuths did not stop at transactions. Many tried to uncover who ran Trove. The anonymous founder, “Unwise,” became a key target.
ZachXBT shared a photo of someone at a crypto conference. That person allegedly claimed to be Unwise. Separately, an investigator known as Eye examined corporate records.
These records suggested a company called PerpsCollectibles Ltd. The firm is registered in the British Virgin Islands. Some clues hinted at a possible link to Iran through Telegram accounts.
None of this is confirmed. Still, the effort shows determination. Many want real names attached to real consequences. Trove’s brand now carries severe reputational damage.
Influencers involved in Trove also faced backlash. Wale Moca’s reputation took a hit. Many followers questioned his credibility.
Another influencer, Didi, took formal action. He used the Ethos platform to slash Wale Moca’s credibility score. He cited undisclosed paid promotion of a likely scam.
This episode reignited calls for ethical standards. Undisclosed shilling hurts trust. It also carries long-term consequences for promoters.
Trove’s team claims development continues. A public beta of the collectibles exchange remains online. The team says it will keep building.
Still, trust sits near zero. Community channels overflow with anger. Updates now trigger mockery rather than support.
Few believe Trove can recover. Many already view it as a cautionary tale.
The Trove saga highlights recurring risks in token sales. Several lessons stand out.
Bold ideas attract attention. They also distract from fundamentals. Investors must examine teams, fund usage, and roadmap consistency.
In Trove’s case, anonymity and sudden pivots mattered. Those signs became red flags later.
Social media excitement is easy to manufacture. Coordinated praise often signals paid promotion.
Investors should verify claims independently. Undisclosed endorsements distort decision-making. Regulators already target this behavior.
Last-minute changes matter. Trove extended and then reversed its ICO. It also switched blockchains days before launch.
Legitimate projects communicate clearly. Repeated confusion often signals deeper problems.
Token buyers take early risk. In return, they deserve clear rights.
If a project changes direction, refunds should remain an option. Trove’s partial refund decision broke trust. Some platforms now discuss audits, insurance, and stricter safeguards.
Crypto no longer operates in total isolation. Investors now pursue lawsuits more often.
The potential case against Trove shows this shift. Investigations funded by major foundations reinforce the trend. Accountability is slowly increasing.
Trove’s team insists it will continue building on Solana. They hope a working product can restore credibility.
That outcome seems unlikely. Most early supporters feel burned. Many have moved on.
If legal action proceeds, remaining funds may become tied up. Regardless, Trove now serves as a warning.
The TROVE collapse reinforces a simple truth. Big promises and famous backers do not guarantee honesty or success.
Investors should question narratives. They should verify on-chain data. Most importantly, they should only risk what they can afford to lose.
Crypto innovation will continue. So will failures and opportunism. Episodes like Trove’s highlight the need for transparency, ethics, and stronger investor protections.
20 Airdrops That Could Print On Solana
Kaspa Roadmap 2026-2027: Every Upgrade, and What It Means
What Sam Bankman-Fried Investments Are Actually Worth Now
How Blockchains Freeze Tokens: The Arbitrum KelpDAO Case And Beyond
20 Airdrops That Could Print On Solana
Kaspa Roadmap 2026-2027: Every Upgrade, and What It Means
What Sam Bankman-Fried Investments Are Actually Worth Now
How Blockchains Freeze Tokens: The Arbitrum KelpDAO Case And Beyond
