Greenfield Capital Files Supervisory Complaint Against Safe Ecosystem Foundation Over Governance and Market Performance

An update to this report has been included to reflect official commentary from a spokesperson representing the Safe Ecosystem Foundation.

Greenfield Capital, a prominent venture capital investor in the digital asset ecosystem and a stakeholder in Safe, has officially escalated a long-running dispute by filing a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The legal and regulatory action seeks sweeping changes to the composition of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation’s board of directors, following months of private negotiations and engagement that Greenfield says failed to resolve deep-seated governance concerns.

In an open letter addressed broadly to the Safe community, Jascha Samadi, founding partner at Greenfield Capital, detailed the motivations behind the regulatory filing. Samadi explained that the complaint submitted to Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA) was triggered by a growing sense of alarm regarding the operational and strategic trajectory of Safe since early 2025. According to Greenfield, this anxiety stems primarily from Safe’s lagging performance relative to the broader digital asset market, alongside what the investor describes as a critical absence of independent voices and objective oversight 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 institutional investor and the project’s leadership.

Responding to inquiries regarding the regulatory action, Samuel Akpan, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, stated that the foundation has 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 brought forward by its investor.

The unfolding governance dispute emerges at a critical financial juncture for Safe. The project has publicly set ambitious operational targets, aiming to achieve financial break-even and double its revenue figures throughout 2026. In a corporate announcement published in February, Safe reported generating more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the close of 2025, while simultaneously outlining a much larger, long-term strategic ambition to scale its operations toward $100 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR) by the year 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Despite the optimistic financial milestones highlighted by the project’s leadership in early 2026, Greenfield Capital has aggressively challenged these projections by pointing to lagging internal metrics and declining market capitalization. The venture capital firm specifically highlighted second-quarter revenue figures of $1.98 million, which translate to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million. Greenfield argues that this performance falls drastically short of the $20 million revenue expectation that had been anticipated for 2026.

Furthermore, the investor argued that Safe has been steadily losing ground and ceding market share despite a booming broader cryptocurrency market. Samadi pointed to specific longitudinal data spanning from January 2024 to August 2026, noting that the total value of assets held securely within Safe accounts experienced a severe downturn, falling from $66 billion down to $30 billion. This represents a contraction of more than 50% over a two-and-a-half-year period, standing in sharp contrast to the broader decentralized finance (DeFi) sector, where total value locked surged by roughly 40% across the same timeframe.

Additional metrics cited in the open letter highlight a similar divergence from broader sector trends. Over the same comparative period, the total supply of stablecoins across the cryptocurrency ecosystem expanded by approximately 135%. However, the volume of stablecoins held within Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a meager 11%. More concerning to the investor, Safe’s market share of USD Coin (USDC) in active circulation plummeted from 12.8% down to just 2.5%.

"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, framing the underperformance as a direct consequence of strategic missteps at the top management level rather than broader macroeconomic headwinds.

Governance Structure and Conflict of Interest Allegations

Beyond the quantitative financial and market share metrics, Greenfield Capital’s primary grievance centers on the structural composition of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation board. Samadi attributed many of the project’s ongoing operational challenges to a distinct lack of independent board members possessing experienced, objective decision-making capabilities.

Specifically, the investor raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest within the existing leadership structure. Greenfield pointed to the dual roles and affiliations of current board members, highlighting Stefan George and his ongoing professional connection to Gnosis, alongside Richard Meissner, whose ties involve companies actively engaged in the development and commercial operation of Safe products. The investor argues that these overlapping relationships compromise the board’s ability to act impartially in the best interest of the broader stakeholder community and token holders.

Prior to filing the supervisory complaint with Swiss authorities, Greenfield stated that it spent many months attempting to engage constructively with the foundation. The firm repeatedly requested a comprehensive restructuring of the foundation’s governance framework. These proposals included the removal of Stefan George from the governing board and a concerted expansion of the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited members who bring specialized expertise in traditional finance, institutional risk management, and long-term corporate business strategy.

With those private appeals yielding no satisfactory resolution, Greenfield Capital has now formally asked the Swiss federal watchdog to step in. The firm is requesting that the ESA conduct a thorough examination of the foundation’s internal governance practices and determine whether mandatory corrective measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity and future viability of the project.