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

Crypto venture capital firm Greenfield Capital has escalated a prolonged dispute with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, announcing that it has formally filed a supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The legal move seeks sweeping changes to the foundation’s board of directors following months of private engagement that failed to resolve mounting concerns over corporate governance, independent oversight, and lagging market performance.

In an open letter published on Sunday 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 intervention has become necessary after his firm grew increasingly concerned about the strategic direction and overall health of Safe since early 2025. Greenfield has pointed to what it describes as a persistent underperformance relative to the broader digital asset market, alongside an acute lack of independent voices capable of providing 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, highlighting the friction between the investor and the leadership team overseeing the project’s ecosystem development.

In response to the developments, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, Samuel Akpan, stated that the foundation had not yet received any formal inquiry from the Swiss regulatory authority and declined to comment further on the specifics or merits of the potential complaint.

The emergence of this governance dispute coincides with a critical period for the Safe project, which is currently setting ambitious financial milestones for the years ahead. Safe has publicly targeted achieving a financial break-even point and a doubling of its revenue streams throughout 2026. In an official announcement released in February, the project reported that it had generated more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue at the close of 2025. Furthermore, the organization outlined a longer-term strategic ambition to scale its operations to reach $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Despite the optimistic long-term financial targets outlined by project leadership, Greenfield Capital has sharply questioned Safe’s immediate revenue trajectory and its ability to capture value in an expanding market. The venture firm highlighted recent financial data showing that Safe recorded $1.98 million in revenue during the second quarter. This figure translates to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million, which Greenfield notes falls significantly short of the $20 million expectation that project stakeholders had anticipated for 2026.

Beyond revenue metrics, Greenfield argued that Safe has steadily been losing ground to competitors despite robust growth across the broader cryptocurrency sector. Samadi pointed to specific data covering a two-and-a-half-year span from January 2024 to August 2026, noting that the total value held in Safe accounts dropped dramatically from $66 billion down to $30 billion. This represents a contraction of more than 50% over the period, contrasting sharply with the wider decentralized finance ecosystem, where total value locked expanded by roughly 40%.

The investor highlighted similar underperformance across other core metrics within the digital asset economy. Over the same timeframe, the aggregate supply of stablecoins across the market grew by approximately 135%. However, stablecoins held within Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a modest 11%. More strikingly, Safe’s share of total USDC in 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, framing the decline as a direct consequence of strategic missteps at the executive level.

Samadi attributed many of these underlying structural weaknesses to a fundamental lack of independent board members possessing experienced, objective decision-making capabilities. Specifically, the venture firm’s open letter raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest among current leadership. Greenfield pointed to board member Stefan George and his ongoing role at Gnosis, as well as fellow board member Richard Meissner, whose professional ties are linked to companies actively developing and operating products within the Safe ecosystem.

To address these concerns, Greenfield stated that it had spent several months pressing the foundation to restructure its internal governance framework. The firm’s proposals included replacing George and expanding the size of the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited members with specialized expertise in corporate finance, risk management, and long-term business strategy. Having exhausted informal channels, Greenfield is now calling on the Swiss federal watchdog to thoroughly examine the foundation’s internal governance practices and determine whether mandatory corrective measures are required to protect the interests of the community and its stakeholders.