Trove was once a star project within the Hyperliquid ecosystem. Collectibles, RWA, and perpetual contracts stacked together as hot topics, aiming to raise 2.5 million dollars, but ended up being oversubscribed to 11.5 million. The numbers look impressive, but that’s precisely the problem—excessive enthusiasm often masks the project's hollow core.

After the fundraising was completed, the project team made a decision: migrate from Hyperliquid to Solana. It may sound insignificant, but this move directly caused a crash. $TROVE opened with a plummet of 97%-99.95%, with its valuation dropping from 20 million to less than 1 million. This wasn’t a dump by big players, but a complete loss of market confidence—no one was willing to buy.

Looking closely at the underlying logic, the issues are quite clear: First, being oversubscribed by multiple times indicates overestimation and high expectations; a bubble burst is inevitable. Second, switching chains midway essentially means abandoning original users and liquidity, akin to cutting off one's own lifeline. Third, an anonymous team controlling huge funds, with rumors of unclear fund flows, makes this structure inherently risky.

For investors, encountering these three situations in 2026 should raise red flags: First, projects with especially large oversubscription; second, projects that change their ecosystem or abandon LP partners after fundraising; third, projects with strong storytelling but slow product implementation, and teams that are highly anonymous yet control significant capital. Historically, such projects tend to end the same way—from hype to rights protection—only separated by a "listing" event.

Trove’s failure was not accidental; it was an inevitable result of structural issues. Next time you evaluate a project, ask more questions: Where is the real value? Where does liquidity come from? Why does this team choose to stay hidden? If you can’t answer, it’s best to walk away early.