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

Greenfield Capital, a prominent investor in the crypto project Safe, has escalated a prolonged dispute by filing a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The venture capital firm is seeking mandatory changes to the Safe Ecosystem Foundation’s board after months of private engagement failed to resolve its mounting governance concerns.

In an open letter addressed to the broader Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi revealed that the complaint was submitted to Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). According to Samadi, the regulatory action comes after his firm became increasingly concerned about the overall trajectory of Safe since early 2025. The investor pointed to the project’s underperformance relative to the broader digital asset market and a stark absence of independent, objective voices on the foundation’s board of directors as the primary catalysts for the legal step.

"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 that months of bilateral discussions had reached an impasse.

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

The emergence of this governance dispute coincides with a critical operational period for Safe. The project is actively targeting financial break-even and a doubling of its revenue performance throughout 2026. In a corporate announcement published in February, project leadership reported generating more than $10 million in annualized project-wide revenue at the close of 2025. Furthermore, the organization outlined an ambitious, long-term roadmap targeting $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Despite the optimistic long-term projections issued by project leadership, Greenfield Capital expressed deep skepticism regarding Safe’s financial momentum. The investment firm highlighted that Safe recorded $1.98 million in revenue during the second quarter, which translates to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million. Greenfield noted that this figure falls significantly short of the $20 million revenue expectation set for 2026.

The venture firm argued that Safe has been steadily losing ground within the decentralized finance ecosystem, even as the broader cryptocurrency market experiences robust expansion. Samadi detailed that between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held securely within Safe accounts dropped drastically from $66 billion down to $30 billion, representing a decline of more than 50%. This contraction stands in stark contrast to the wider decentralized finance sector, where total value locked grew by 40% over the same timeframe.

Additional metrics cited in the open letter illustrated a similar lag in adoption and asset retention. While the total supply of stablecoins across the industry expanded by roughly 135% during the monitored period, the volume of stablecoins held within Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a meager 11%. More notably, Safe’s market share of USD Coin in general 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, pointing to what his firm views as a severe failure in strategic execution and market capture.

The investor attributed many of these operational shortcomings to a persistent lack of independent board members possessing deep, experienced decision-making capabilities. Beyond general oversight issues, the complaint explicitly raises concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest within the leadership structure. Specifically, Greenfield pointed to board member Stefan George and his ongoing professional role at Gnosis, alongside fellow board member Richard Meissner and his operational ties to various commercial entities involved in developing and maintaining Safe products.

Prior to approaching the Swiss regulatory authorities, Greenfield stated that it spent many months urging the foundation to restructure its internal governance framework. The investor’s proposed remedies included replacing George and expanding the board to include independent, externally recruited professionals with specialized expertise in finance, corporate risk management, and long-term business strategy. With those private overtures yielding no results, Greenfield is now asking the Swiss foundation watchdog to conduct a comprehensive examination of the foundation’s governance practices and determine whether mandatory corrective measures must be enforced.