Someone, I forgot who (don't want to steal ideas, I think Patrick Arnold, but if not, credit to whomever did say this) speculated that since tren doesn't convert to tren-dione that the tren-dione may not convert to tren. I want to say that this was in-vitro so it may or may not be the same in vivo. As with other prohormones, though, the compound may have some anabolic potential just as it is (unconverted; think 4AD before conversion to test).
Either way, the tren-dione material is way too costly to reasonably market at a dose that may do something, assuming that the conversion actually does take place (which goes back to it maybe not being reasonable). And this comes from a guy who wants to market it or holds patents on it (or both).