Tensions within the decentralized finance ecosystem have escalated significantly following a decisive move by Greenfield Capital, an early investor and stakeholder in the Safe project. Greenfield has formally announced that it has filed a supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). The regulatory action seeks to compel structural changes to the Safe Ecosystem Foundation’s board of directors, a step the investment firm took only after months of private engagement and dialogue failed to resolve its mounting governance and performance concerns.
The regulatory challenge comes at a critical juncture for Safe, a prominent name in self-custody infrastructure and multi-signature smart contract wallets. While the project has publicly outlined ambitious financial milestones—including targeting operational break-even and a doubling of revenue by 2026—its internal governance and market performance are now facing intense public scrutiny from one of its core financial backers.
In an open letter addressed to the broader Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi detailed the motivations behind the unprecedented regulatory filing. According to Samadi, the decision to approach the Swiss foundation watchdog stems from growing anxiety regarding the overall trajectory of the Safe ecosystem, an unease that has been building since early 2025. The investment firm points to what it describes as a stark underperformance relative to the broader cryptocurrency market, alongside a concerning lack of independent oversight and diverse voices on the foundation’s governing board.
"We have come to believe, after more than a year of research, dialogue and patience, that Safe will not reach its potential under its current governance," Samadi stated in the open letter, signaling a definitive breakdown in relations between the disgruntled investor and the foundation’s leadership.
In response to the developments, Samuel Akpan, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, addressed the situation by stating that the foundation has not yet received any formal inquiry or documentation from the Swiss Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations. Consequently, the foundation has opted to decline further public comment regarding the specific details or merits of the potential regulatory complaint at this time.
The timing of this governance dispute coincides with a period of strategic financial planning for the Safe project. Earlier in the year, specifically in February, the project released financial projections indicating that it had achieved more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the close of 2025. Looking ahead, the project’s leadership has set its sights on reaching an ambitious milestone of $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030, alongside immediate targets to achieve financial break-even. However, these forward-looking financial goals are now being closely scrutinized against real-time operational metrics and market share developments.
Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth
Despite the optimistic financial targets publicized by the project’s leadership, Greenfield Capital has cast doubt on these projections by highlighting what it perceives as underwhelming near-term financial results. The investment firm specifically pointed to second-quarter revenue figures of $1.98 million. When annualized, this figure translates to a run rate of approximately $8 million, a performance metric that Greenfield argues falls drastically short of the $20 million revenue expectation currently baked into projections for 2026.
Beyond raw revenue figures, Greenfield’s critique extends to Safe’s eroding market dominance during a multi-year period when the broader digital asset economy experienced substantial expansion. Samadi highlighted a troubling divergence between market trends and Safe’s internal metrics, noting that between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held within Safe accounts experienced a sharp decline of more than 50 percent, falling from $66 billion down to $30 billion. This contraction occurred during a timeframe when the total value locked across the broader decentralized finance landscape grew by roughly 40 percent.
The divergence is similarly pronounced when examining stablecoin utilization and storage. Over that same multi-year window, total stablecoin supply across the cryptocurrency ecosystem expanded by approximately 135 percent. In stark contrast, stablecoins held within Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a meager 11 percent. More notably, Safe’s specific share of USD Coin in active circulation plummeted from 12.8 percent down to just 2.5 percent, illustrating a significant loss of ground in one of the sector’s most vital use cases.
"In the category that has grown the most and that self-custody infrastructure is best placed to serve, Safe has been losing ground for two and a half years," Samadi emphasized, underscoring what Greenfield views as a failure of strategic execution by the project’s current administrators.
Greenfield attributes these compounding performance issues primarily to systemic weaknesses in governance, specifically pointing to a lack of independent board members possessing the requisite experience for high-level decision-making. Furthermore, the investment firm has raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest within the current leadership structure. Specifically, the firm has questioned the dual roles and affiliations of board member Stefan George regarding his involvement with Gnosis, as well as fellow board member Richard Meissner and his ties to commercial entities tasked with developing and operating Safe-related products.
For months prior to taking the matter to Swiss regulators, Greenfield reportedly engaged in private discussions with the foundation, urging a comprehensive restructuring of its governance model. These proposals included replacing Stefan George and expanding the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited professionals with specialized expertise in corporate finance, risk management, and long-term business strategy.
With those private overtures failing to yield the desired structural reforms, Greenfield is now turning to Switzerland’s regulatory framework. By petitioning the Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations, the investor hopes to trigger an independent examination of the foundation’s administrative practices and determine whether mandatory corrective measures must be enforced to protect the long-term viability of the ecosystem.
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
