Greenfield Capital, an institutional investor in the Safe ecosystem, has escalated a prolonged dispute with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation by filing a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The legal and regulatory maneuver seeks mandatory changes to the foundation’s board of directors after months of private and public engagement failed to produce what the investment firm considers adequate governance reforms.
According to an open letter published to the Safe community by Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi, the complaint submitted to Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA) is the culmination of mounting frustration. Samadi stated that his firm has grown increasingly concerned about the strategic trajectory and operational health of Safe since early 2025. These anxieties are primarily rooted in what Greenfield views as lagging performance relative to the broader digital asset market and a stark absence of independent, objective voices on the foundation’s governing board.
The unfolding governance crisis comes at a critical juncture for the project. Safe has publicly stated ambitions to reach financial break-even and double its revenue throughout the course of 2026. In a corporate announcement issued in February, the Safe project reported generating more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the close of 2025, while simultaneously mapping out a long-term strategic trajectory aimed at achieving $100 million in annual recurring revenue by 2030.
However, investors like Greenfield argue that these forward-looking financial targets are disconnected from current operational headwinds and systemic governance bottlenecks.
A spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, Samuel Akpan, addressed the development by noting that the foundation has not yet received any formal inquiry or documentation from the Swiss supervisory authority. Consequently, the foundation has declined to comment on the specific legal details or substantive allegations contained within Greenfield’s potential regulatory complaint.
Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share
To substantiate its regulatory intervention and public critique, Greenfield Capital has pointed to specific financial metrics that it believes undermine the foundation’s optimistic narrative. The investment firm highlighted Safe’s second-quarter revenue figures, which stood at $1.98 million. When annualized, this quarterly performance translates to a run rate of approximately $8 million—a figure that falls drastically short of the $20 million revenue expectation that the project has set for 2026.
Beyond raw revenue generation, Greenfield argues that Safe is steadily losing ground within the decentralized finance ecosystem despite robust macro growth across the broader crypto economy. Samadi detailed a stark divergence in performance metrics between January 2024 and August 2026. During this roughly two-and-a-half-year window, the total value held securely within Safe accounts plummeted from $66 billion down to $30 billion, representing a severe contraction of more than 50%. Over that exact same timeframe, the total value locked across the broader decentralized finance landscape expanded by roughly 40%.
The contraction in capital retention is further mirrored in stablecoin liquidity trends. Macroeconomic data indicates that the total circulating supply of stablecoins grew by approximately 135% between early 2024 and late summer 2026. In stark contrast, the total volume of stablecoins held inside Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a meager 11%. More alarmingly for the protocol’s market dominance, Safe’s specific share of USDC in active circulation experienced a sharp decline, dropping from 12.8% down to just 2.5%.
For Greenfield, these metrics tell a definitive story about missed opportunities in a high-growth sector. Samadi emphasized that in the exact market category that has experienced the most aggressive expansion—and the one where self-custody infrastructure is arguably best positioned to capture market share—Safe has steadily lost competitive ground for over two and a half years.
The investment firm attributes these systemic underperformances directly to foundational governance deficiencies. Specifically, Greenfield has criticized the board for lacking independent members equipped with the necessary background in objective, experienced decision-making. Furthermore, the firm has raised serious questions regarding potential conflicts of interest among current leadership. Samadi pointed specifically to board member Stefan George and his ongoing professional commitments at Gnosis, alongside fellow board member Richard Meissner and his operational ties to commercial entities tasked with developing and operating Safe-related products.
Before taking the formal step of appealing to Swiss regulatory authorities, Greenfield reportedly spent months attempting to negotiate an internal resolution. The firm’s proposed restructuring plans urged the foundation to replace Stefan George and deliberately expand the composition of the board by recruiting independent external directors with specialized expertise in corporate finance, risk management, and long-term business strategy.
With those private entreaties failing to yield structural change, Greenfield has now placed the matter squarely in the hands of the Swiss federal watchdog. The regulatory review will determine whether the foundation is operating in accordance with Swiss legal standards and whether court-mandated corrective measures are necessary to safeguard the interests of the broader community and its investors.
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
