Greenfield Capital Files Supervisory Complaint Against Safe Ecosystem Foundation Amid Growing Governance and Performance Concerns

Crypto venture capital firm Greenfield Capital has escalated a prolonged dispute with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, announcing that it has filed a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s federal foundation watchdog. The legal and administrative move aims to compel structural changes to the foundation’s board of directors after months of private and public engagement failed to resolve deep-seated governance concerns raised by major stakeholders.

In an open letter published to the Safe community on a Sunday, Jascha Samadi, founding partner at Greenfield Capital, detailed the motivations behind the regulatory action. He stated that the complaint lodged with Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA) became necessary after his firm grew increasingly alarmed about the trajectory and strategic management of the Safe ecosystem since early 2025. According to Samadi, these worries stem not only from the project’s performance lagging significantly behind the broader cryptocurrency market, but also from a severe lack of independent voices and checks and balances on the foundation’s board.

After more than a year of intensive research, bilateral dialogue, and institutional patience, Greenfield Capital reached the conclusion that the Safe project cannot fulfill its long-term potential or capture its market opportunity under its current governance framework.

When approached for comment regarding the regulatory filing, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, Samuel Akpan, stated that the foundation had not yet received a formal inquiry or notification from the ESA. Consequently, the foundation declined to comment on the specific details or legal merits of the potential complaint at this stage.

The unfolding governance dispute arrives at a critical juncture for the project. Safe is currently pursuing ambitious financial goals, targeting a break-even financial milestone and a doubling of its revenue profile throughout 2026. In an official announcement released in February, the project reported generating more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue at the conclusion of 2025, alongside outlining a strategic vision to scale toward $100 million in annual recurring revenue by 2030. However, key investors like Greenfield argue that the foundation’s current operational execution and governance model threaten these lofty targets.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Challenging the narrative of robust and uninterrupted financial expansion, Greenfield Capital highlighted recent financial data indicating that Safe’s revenue growth is falling drastically short of internal expectations. The investment firm pointed to $1.98 million in revenue recorded during the second quarter, which translates to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million. This figure sits far below the $20 million revenue expectation that had been projected for 2026.

Beyond the immediate revenue metrics, Greenfield argued that Safe was steadily losing ground despite an overall expansion phase across the wider crypto economy. Samadi noted that between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held within Safe accounts experienced a steep downward trajectory, falling from $66 billion down to $30 billion. This represents a decline of more than 50% in assets secured by the infrastructure. During this exact same timeframe, the total value locked across the broader decentralized finance sector expanded by roughly 40%.

The discrepancy in growth metrics extends further into the stablecoin sector, which has traditionally served as a primary use case for self-custody solutions and digital asset management. Over the same multi-year period, the global supply of total stablecoins grew by approximately 135%. In stark contrast, the volume of stablecoins held within Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a meager 11%. More concerningly, Safe’s overall market share of circulating USDC collapsed dramatically, dropping from 12.8% down to 2.5%.

Emphasizing the severity of these underperformance trends, Samadi pointed out that in the exact market category that has experienced the most explosive growth—and the one where professional self-custody infrastructure is best positioned to serve institutional and retail participants—Safe has systematically been losing ground for two and a half years.

Greenfield attributes many of these persistent operational and strategic shortcomings directly to a deficient governance structure, specifically highlighting the absence of independent board members possessing objective, experienced decision-making capabilities. Furthermore, the firm raised explicit concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest at the highest levels of leadership. Specifically, the open letter pointed to board member Stefan George and his ongoing professional roles at Gnosis, as well as fellow board member Richard Meissner and his direct ties to various corporate entities engaged in developing and operating core Safe products.

In response to these perceived conflicts and strategic misalignments, Greenfield revealed that it had spent many months formally petitioning the foundation to restructure its governance framework. These requests included replacing Stefan George and expanding the board to incorporate independently recruited members equipped with specialized expertise in corporate finance, enterprise risk management, and long-term business strategy. Having exhausted internal dialogue without achieving structural reform, Greenfield is now asking the Swiss regulatory watchdog to thoroughly examine the foundation’s internal governance practices and determine whether mandatory corrective measures must be enforced to protect stakeholders and the broader ecosystem.