This highly anticipated public fundraising round ended in an unexpected setback, highlighting how investors are becoming more rational and cautious in today’s market environment.
When a project’s valuation is out of sync with market sentiment, even being part of a trending ecosystem can’t guarantee success. Hurupay’s failure was no coincidence—it occurred at a pivotal moment. According to a report from Delphi Digital, bearish sentiment had already taken hold of the cryptocurrency market by early 2026.
At the same time, the ICO model is making a strong comeback, now with a greater emphasis on "aligned interests," aiming to address the previous pitfalls of venture capital dominance and retail investor marginalization.
Event Overview
As a next-generation launch platform attracting significant attention within the Solana ecosystem, MetaDAO faced an awkward "first."
The Hurupay project’s public fundraising on its platform failed to reach the minimum target, making it the first unsuccessful ICO on MetaDAO. The event quickly sparked discussion within the community, serving as a microcosm for observing current market sentiment and project selection standards.
Key data from the event are summarized in the table below:
| Key Metric | Details |
|---|---|
| Project Name | Hurupay |
| Platform | Solana Ecosystem MetaDAO Launchpad |
| Launch Date | February 3, 2026 |
| Minimum Fundraising Target | $3,000,000 |
| Actual Funds Raised | Approximately $2,003,593 |
| Target Achievement Rate | About 67% |
| Final Outcome | Failed, all participant funds returned |
Reasons for Failure
Feedback from the community and market points to a combination of several key factors behind this failure.
The most immediate and significant reason was the project’s overvaluation. In a cooling fundraising environment, investors have become highly sensitive to valuation. Any high valuation lacking fundamental support struggles to gain broad market acceptance.
Additionally, the team’s lack of transparency eroded trust. In an industry where transparency is critical to building confidence, anonymous or opaque teams are finding it increasingly difficult to attract substantial funding.
Major changes to the fundraising terms during the process further undermined participant confidence. The stability of terms reflects the project team’s commitment and planning ability, and last-minute significant changes are often seen as red flags.
Market Context
Hurupay’s failure isn’t an isolated incident—it happened during a subtle turning point in the crypto market.
By 2026, market analysis indicated that "bearish sentiment had become dominant," with some observers even suggesting the peak of the four-year market cycle had already passed. This shift in overall sentiment has made capital more cautious and significantly reduced risk appetite for new projects.
Meanwhile, the market’s focus is undergoing profound changes. The definition of a token’s function is becoming increasingly complex, oscillating between ownership, governance tools, and user acquisition incentives.
Against this backdrop, fundraising models are quietly evolving. The once-dormant ICO is making a comeback, but with a different meaning. Its core appeal now lies in offering retail investors a fairer entry point, correcting the misalignment of interests caused by venture capital–dominated fundraising in the past.
MetaDAO Platform Mechanisms and Performance
In light of this failure, MetaDAO and its mechanisms as a launch platform have also come under scrutiny.
MetaDAO is more than just a simple launchpad. It aims to provide "serious builders" with a comprehensive solution that includes token issuance, governance, and legal protection.
It leverages Futurearchy AMM for governance and trading, and uses a DAO legal structure to provide token holders with legal asset protection.
Prior to Hurupay, ICOs on the MetaDAO platform had performed quite strongly overall. Data shows that among the nine tokens launched, three traded above their ICO price. If an investor had participated equally in each, their portfolio would have grown by 194%.
This failure serves as a reminder: even well-designed platform mechanisms cannot fully eliminate the risk of individual projects failing due to their own quality or market timing issues.
Industry Trends and Future Insights
The Hurupay case offers several valuable lessons for the broader crypto fundraising landscape.
First, it confirms the trend of "the market shifting from venture capital–driven fundraising to decentralized fundraising." The return of ICOs essentially reflects the market’s call for more transparent and equitable issuance models.
Second, it exposes new challenges. Poorly designed ICOs—especially those with excessive valuations—still struggle to succeed. The market’s self-correcting mechanisms are at work, filtering out unqualified participants.
For investors, this means a higher level of professional judgment is required. The era of blindly chasing ecosystem hype or platform prestige is fading. In-depth research into project fundamentals, team backgrounds, and reasonable valuations is now more crucial than ever.
Conclusion
As of February 10, token prices related to the MetaDAO ecosystem on the Gate trading platform have not experienced significant volatility. META remains a closely watched infrastructure asset within the Solana ecosystem.
Following this setback, various "meme coins" generated by Claude Code on the Solana network continue to go through rapid cycles of launch, price spikes, and subsequent crashes of over 80%—often ending in a complete wipeout.
As the noise of speculative frenzy gradually fades, projects that are genuinely committed to solving industry challenges, with clear models and reliable teams, will ultimately prove their value over time.
