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

Crypto venture capital firm Greenfield Capital has escalated its long-standing dispute with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, officially filing a supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The legal and regulatory move comes after months of private and public engagement failed to resolve the investor’s deep-seated concerns regarding the governance structure, strategic direction, and overall market performance of the prominent crypto project.

In an open letter addressed to the broader Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi detailed the decision to approach Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). According to Samadi, the regulatory intervention became necessary after his firm grew increasingly alarmed about the operational trajectory of Safe since early 2025. Greenfield pointed to a stark disconnect between Safe’s performance and the robust expansion of the broader digital asset market, alongside a glaring lack of independent voices on the foundation’s board of directors.

Samadi emphasized that the decision to involve Swiss regulators was not taken lightly, noting that it followed extensive internal deliberation. After more than a year of conducting research, engaging in direct dialogue, and exercising considerable patience, the venture firm concluded that Safe simply cannot reach its full potential under its current governance framework.

When contacted for comment, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, Samuel Akpan, stated that the organization had not yet received a formal inquiry from the ESA. Consequently, the foundation declined to comment on the specific details or potential merits of the complaint filed by Greenfield Capital.

The public governance clash arrives at a critical financial juncture for Safe. The project has set ambitious corporate milestones, targeting a financial break-even point and a doubling of its revenue streams throughout 2026. Earlier in February, Safe Project public disclosures reported generating more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the conclusion of 2025, while simultaneously mapping out a long-term strategic ambition to scale its annual recurring revenue to $100 million by 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Despite the optimistic financial projections put forward by the project’s leadership, Greenfield Capital has sharply questioned Safe’s actual revenue growth trajectory. The investor highlighted financial data from the second quarter, which recorded $1.98 million in revenue. This figure translates to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million, falling significantly short of the $20 million benchmark anticipated for 2026.

Beyond top-line revenue concerns, Greenfield argued that Safe was steadily losing ground while the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem experienced substantial expansion. Samadi pointed out 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 contraction of more than 50% over a two-and-a-half-year period. During that exact timeframe, the total value locked across decentralized finance markets grew by roughly 40%.

Further analysis from the venture firm underscored similar underperformance in stablecoin integration. While the global total stablecoin supply grew by approximately 135% over the same multi-year window, the volume of stablecoins held inside Safe accounts on the Ethereum network increased by a mere 11%. More glaringly, Safe’s overall share of USD Coin in active circulation plummeted from 12.8% down to just 2.5%.

Samadi underscored the irony of these metrics within the context of market trends, noting that in the exact digital asset category that has experienced the most aggressive growth—and one that self-custody infrastructure is ideally positioned to serve—Safe has continuously lost market share for over two years.

Greenfield directly attributed many of these troubling performance indicators to systemic governance issues, specifically highlighting a shortage of independent board members possessing objective, experienced decision-making capabilities. Furthermore, the firm raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest among current leadership. These allegations specifically targeted board member Stefan George due to his ongoing professional role at Gnosis, alongside fellow board member Richard Meissner and his operational ties to various commercial entities involved in developing and maintaining Safe products.

In light of these findings, Greenfield revealed that it had spent several months lobbying the foundation to restructure its leadership board. The proposed remedies included replacing Stefan George and expanding the governing body to include independent, externally recruited professionals who possess specialized expertise in traditional finance, corporate risk management, and long-term business strategy. Having exhausted informal resolution channels, Greenfield is now asking the Swiss supervisory watchdog to thoroughly examine the foundation’s internal governance practices and determine whether mandatory corrective measures must be enforced to protect the ecosystem’s future.