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

Greenfield Capital, a prominent investor in the Safe ecosystem, has escalated a prolonged dispute by filing a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The legal move seeks sweeping changes to the Safe Ecosystem Foundation’s board composition following months of private engagement that reportedly failed to resolve mounting governance concerns.

In an open letter addressed to the broader Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi detailed the decision to bring the matter before Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). According to Samadi, the regulatory filing stems from a growing sense of alarm regarding the trajectory of Safe since early 2025. The venture capital firm pointed to underperformance relative to the broader digital asset market and a perceived lack of independent oversight on the foundation’s governing board as primary catalysts for the action.

"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 investor and the leadership team.

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

The public governance dispute unfolds at a critical juncture for the project. Safe has actively targeted a financial break-even point and a doubling of its revenue throughout 2026. In a corporate announcement published in February, the project reported generating more than $10 million in annualized project-wide revenue by the close of 2025. Furthermore, leadership outlined an ambitious long-term roadmap aiming for $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Despite the optimistic financial projections shared by the project’s leadership, Greenfield Capital presented a starkly different evaluation of Safe’s commercial health. The investment firm highlighted second-quarter revenue figures of $1.98 million, which translate to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million. Greenfield noted that this performance falls significantly short of the $20 million revenue expectations projected for 2026.

Beyond the immediate financial metrics, Greenfield argued that Safe has steadily lost ground while the broader cryptocurrency sector has experienced substantial growth. Samadi pointed to specific on-chain data indicating that between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held within Safe accounts plummeted from $66 billion down to $30 billion. This represents a decline of more than 50% over a two-and-a-half-year period, contrasting sharply with the wider decentralized finance market, where total value locked expanded by 40%.

The investor’s critique extended to stablecoin metrics, a vital sector for self-custody and transaction infrastructure. Over the same timeframe, the total supply of stablecoins across the industry grew by roughly 135%. In contrast, stablecoins held within Safe accounts on the Ethereum network increased by a modest 11%. Additionally, Safe’s market share of USDC in global circulation dropped precipitously from 12.8% 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 his critique of the project’s commercial positioning.

According to Greenfield Capital, many of these operational and strategic shortcomings can be directly traced back to a deficient governance structure, specifically highlighting a lack of independent board members with robust financial and strategic expertise. The firm raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest on the board, pointing to Stefan George and his ongoing role at Gnosis, as well as Richard Meissner and his ties to entities actively developing and operating Safe-related products.

Before resorting to regulatory intervention, Greenfield stated that it spent many months urging the foundation to restructure its leadership. These private proposals included replacing George and expanding the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited professionals possessing specialized skills in corporate finance, risk management, and long-term business strategy. With those internal appeals unsuccessful, Greenfield is now asking the Swiss supervisory watchdog to review the foundation’s operational integrity and determine what corrective measures may be necessary to protect the ecosystem’s future.