The Trove Markets Scandal: How a $10M Token Dump Exposed the Dark Side of Permissionless Perps
"A few minutes after the founder of @TroveMarkets said that he does not control the wallet, and that he is asking for the wallet to be shut down, it starts selling again." This chilling observation from Hyperliquid News captured the moment trust evaporated for one of decentralized finance's most ambitious projects. Within 24 hours, nearly $10 million in HYPE tokens were dumped from a wallet linked to Trove Markets—and the founder claimed he had no control over it. The resulting chaos exposed fundamental questions about permissionless protocols, governance, and what happens when the promise of decentralization meets the reality of human nature.
The Setup: HIP-3 and the $22.5 Million Barrier to Entry
To understand the Trove scandal, you first need to understand Hyperliquid's HIP-3 protocol—the mechanism that was supposed to usher in a new era of permissionless perpetual futures.
Hyperliquid activated HIP-3 on October 13, 2025, enabling anyone to deploy their own perpetual futures market without approval. The catch? A 500,000 HYPE staking requirement. At prices around $45 per token, that translated to approximately $22.5 million locked as a "slashable bond"—collateral that validators could seize if a deployer acted maliciously.
The economics were elegant:
- No permission needed: Deploy markets without applications or approvals
- Aligned incentives: 50/50 fee split between deployers and the protocol
- Validator oversight: Stake-weighted voting could slash bad actors even during the 7-day unstaking queue
- Risk isolation: Each builder-deployed market operates with independent order books and margining
Trove Markets positioned itself as a flagship HIP-3 project—a decentralized perpetual exchange that would launch on Hyperliquid's infrastructure. The team raised $11.9 million through an ICO at a fully diluted valuation of $20 million. The funds were earmarked for securing the 500,000 HYPE tokens required for HIP-3 deployment.
Everything seemed aligned for success. Then the sales began.
The Dump: 194,273 HYPE Tokens in 24 Hours
On-chain data tells a story of escalating liquidation. What started as a modest 6,196 HYPE sale worth approximately $160,000 quickly accelerated. Within a single day, total sales reached 194,273 HYPE tokens—roughly $10 million.
The timing was suspicious. The velocity was alarming. The denials made it worse.
Trove's founder publicly claimed he did not control the selling wallet and requested its shutdown. Minutes later, the wallet resumed selling. This contradiction—a founder claiming no control while sales continued—transformed suspicion into crisis.
Blockchain investigator ZachXBT, engaged by the Hyperliquid Foundation with a 10,000 HYPE donation (~$254,000), began tracing the funds. His findings deepened the concern:
- Wallets linked to Trove sold nearly $10 million in HYPE within 24 hours
- $45,000 from the Trove Angel Round raise was bridged directly to a casino deposit address
- Influencer @waleswoosh reportedly received $8,000 to promote the ICO
- Other influencers allegedly received $5,000 monthly payments plus the ability to buy tokens at half the public price
The picture emerging wasn't of a project struggling with market conditions—it was of potential fraud at industrial scale.
The Pivot: From Hyperliquid to Solana in 48 Hours
If the token dump damaged trust, Trove's next move obliterated it.
On January 19, 2026, Trove Markets announced it was pivoting from Hyperliquid to Solana. The explanation: a "liquidity partner" had withdrawn 500,000 HYPE tokens needed for the HIP-3 perps launch.
The timing was devastating. Investors who had contributed $11.5 million specifically for a Hyperliquid integration suddenly found themselves funding a completely different project. The TROVE token, which launched with a $20 million market cap, collapsed to under $2 million within minutes—a 95% crash.
What investors received:
- $2.44 million in refunds
- A pivot to an entirely different blockchain
- A token worth 5% of its launch price
What Trove retained:
- $9.4 million for "development"
- Plans for a February 2026 mainnet launch on Solana
- A community in open revolt
Investors began calling for class action lawsuits. The refrain on social media became: "It launched and died."
The Governance Gap: When Permissionless Meets Accountability
The Trove scandal exposes a fundamental tension in DeFi governance: how do you maintain the benefits of permissionless innovation while preventing bad actors from exploiting community trust?
HIP-3's Design Philosophy
Hyperliquid's HIP-3 was designed with safeguards:
- 500,000 HYPE staking creates financial skin in the game
- Validator slashing provides post-hoc accountability
- 7-day unstaking queues prevent immediate exit after misconduct
- Isolated margining contains contagion risk
But these mechanisms address operational misconduct—price manipulation, oracle attacks, unfair liquidations. They weren't designed to handle pre-launch fraud or ICO manipulation.
The ICO Vulnerability
The attack vector wasn't the perps protocol itself—it was the fundraising phase. By the time HIP-3's slashing mechanisms would apply, the alleged misconduct had already occurred:
- HYPE tokens were sold before any perpetual market launched
- Funds allegedly moved to casino addresses before deployment
- The pivot to Solana rendered Hyperliquid's governance irrelevant
This is the "ICO problem" crypto has struggled with since 2017, now manifesting in the permissionless perps era.
The Pattern: Hyperliquid's Recurring Centralization Crisis
The Trove scandal isn't Hyperliquid's first governance controversy. The platform has faced mounting questions about centralization throughout 2025:
January 2025: Validator Concerns
ChorusOne employee Kam Benbrik raised alarms about Hyperliquid's validator setup. Initially operating with just four validators (later increased to sixteen), the network faced criticism for:
- Closed-source codebase ("code will be open source when it's secure to do so")
- Concentrated token supply
- Opaque validator admission process
April 2025: The JELLY Incident
A trader manipulated the JELLY token price, forcing Hyperliquid's vault into losses. The platform's response—delisting the token and settling at a price that avoided vault losses—raised decentralization concerns. Total value locked plummeted from $540 million to $150 million.
December 2025: Token Burn Proposal
The Hyper Foundation proposed burning approximately 37 million HYPE tokens (~10% of circulating supply, worth nearly $1 billion). While positioned as supply management, it highlighted how much control the Foundation maintains.
Price Impact
These recurring controversies have taken their toll. HYPE fell 60% from its peak market cap of $9.7 billion to $4.6 billion over four months.
The Investigation: What ZachXBT Uncovered
The Hyperliquid Foundation's 10,000 HYPE donation to ZachXBT represented one of the investigator's largest-ever contributions—a measure of how seriously the ecosystem viewed the allegations.
Key Findings:
- Casino deposits: $45,000 from the Angel Round bridged directly to casino addresses
- Paid promotion without disclosure: Influencers received $5,000-$8,000 monthly to promote Trove without proper disclosure
- Discounted tokens for promoters: Influencers could purchase at half the public ICO price
- Undisclosed team origins: Reports emerged of efforts to conceal team members' Iranian origins
- XMR1 investment: Community flagged Trove's investment in the controversial privacy project using proceeds from HYPE sales
The investigation continues, but the on-chain evidence has already shifted the narrative from "market conditions" to "potential fraud."
Lessons for DeFi Governance
The Trove scandal offers uncomfortable lessons for the permissionless finance movement:
1. ICO Risk Persists
Despite years of regulatory crackdowns and community learning, ICO-stage manipulation remains a viable attack vector. Permissionless protocols need pre-launch accountability mechanisms, not just post-launch slashing.
2. Staking Bonds Have Limits
500,000 HYPE (~$22.5 million) wasn't enough to prevent alleged misconduct. When the potential gains from fraud exceed the slashable stake, economic incentives fail.
3. Pivot Risk Is Real
Multi-chain flexibility—normally a feature—becomes a vulnerability when projects can abandon one ecosystem for another mid-fundraise. Investors in Hyperliquid-specific products found themselves holding Solana tokens.
4. Investigator Infrastructure Matters
The Hyperliquid Foundation's rapid engagement of ZachXBT demonstrated mature crisis response. But not every protocol has $254,000 to fund investigations—and community trust shouldn't depend on individual investigators.
5. Centralization Is a Spectrum
Hyperliquid's governance controversies highlight that "decentralized" isn't binary. Closed-source code, concentrated validators, and foundation-controlled burns all represent centralization vectors even in protocols labeled as decentralized.
What Happens Next
Trove Markets plans a February 2026 mainnet launch on Solana. Whether any meaningful community remains to use it is doubtful.
For Hyperliquid, the scandal raises questions about HIP-3's design:
- Should there be additional pre-launch vetting for projects raising significant ICO funds?
- Could on-chain identity requirements add accountability without sacrificing permissionlessness?
- Should validator slashing extend to pre-deployment fundraising misconduct?
For the broader DeFi ecosystem, Trove is a reminder that technology doesn't eliminate human nature. Permissionless infrastructure creates opportunity—for innovation and for fraud. The protocols that thrive long-term will be those that find the right balance between openness and accountability.
The Trove Markets scandal may fade from headlines, but its lessons will shape how the next generation of permissionless protocols approach governance. The $10 million question isn't whether decentralized perps have a future—it's whether that future includes mechanisms robust enough to prevent the next Trove.
BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade RPC infrastructure for builders developing on decentralized exchanges and DeFi protocols. As the perps ecosystem matures, reliable node infrastructure becomes critical for applications requiring high-availability access to on-chain data. Explore our API marketplace to build on infrastructure designed for institutional requirements.