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

Crypto venture 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 move seeks an intervention and potential restructuring of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation’s board of directors, following what Greenfield describes as months of failed private engagement regarding critical governance and market performance issues.

In an open letter published to the Safe community on Sunday, Jascha Samadi, a founding partner at Greenfield Capital, detailed the decision to take the matter to Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). According to Samadi, the complaint comes after his firm grew increasingly concerned about the overall trajectory of the Safe ecosystem since early 2025. Greenfield pointed to a combination of underwhelming financial metrics, lagging adoption relative to the broader decentralized finance (DeFi) market, and a perceived lack of independent 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 wrote in the open letter.

Responding to the development, Samuel Akpan, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, stated that the organization has not yet received a formal inquiry or notification from the ESA. Consequently, the foundation declined to comment on the specific details or merits of the potential complaint brought forward by its investor.

The public governance dispute unfolds at a critical juncture for the Safe project, which has publicly outlined ambitious financial targets for the coming years. In February, Safe project representatives reported generating more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue at the close of 2025. Looking ahead, the project has set its sights on achieving financial break-even and doubling its revenue streams throughout 2026, while mapping out a longer-term strategic path toward reaching $100 million in annual recurring revenue by 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Despite the optimistic long-term projections shared by the project’s leadership, Greenfield Capital’s analysis paints a far more conservative and concerning picture of Safe’s current financial reality and market standing. The venture firm highlighted recent financial data showing that Safe brought in $1.98 million in revenue during the second quarter. When annualized, this figure represents a run rate of approximately $8 million, which falls significantly short of the $20 million revenue expectation that had been anticipated for 2026.

Greenfield argued that Safe is actively losing ground in the Web3 ecosystem despite favorable tailwinds and notable growth across the broader cryptocurrency sector. To illustrate this point, Samadi pointed to a stark contraction in asset retention. Between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held within Safe accounts plummeted from $66 billion down to $30 billion, representing a decline of more than 50%. Over that exact same timeframe, the total value locked across the broader decentralized finance landscape grew by roughly 40%.

The investor’s critique extended beyond total value locked, touching on stablecoin adoption and utilization metrics. While the aggregate global stablecoin supply expanded by approximately 135% during the monitored period, the amount of stablecoins held within Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a meager 11%. Furthermore, Safe’s market share of USD Coin (USDC) in active circulation experienced a sharp drop, falling 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 in the open letter, underscoring the urgency of the firm’s concerns regarding product market fit and execution.

At the core of Greenfield’s complaint is an assertion that these performance issues stem directly from internal governance structures. Specifically, the firm criticized the foundation for a lack of truly independent board members equipped with objective, experienced decision-making capabilities. Samadi raised explicit concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest on the board, pointing to board member Stefan George and his ongoing professional role at Gnosis, as well as fellow board member Richard Meissner and his operational ties to entities engaged in developing and deploying Safe-related products.

For months, Greenfield Capital has urged the foundation to voluntarily restructure its governance framework. These proposed changes included removing George from the board and expanding the governing body to incorporate independent, externally recruited professionals who possess specialized expertise in traditional finance, risk management, and corporate business strategy. Having exhausted its private communication channels without achieving the desired structural reforms, Greenfield is now turning to Swiss regulatory authorities to examine the foundation’s current operations and determine whether mandatory corrective actions are required to protect the interests of the ecosystem and its stakeholders.