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 officially filed a supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The legal move seeks mandatory changes to the board of directors of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation following months of private engagement that Greenfield claims failed to produce any meaningful resolution to its mounting governance concerns.

In an open letter addressed to the broader Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi detailed the decision to approach Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations, known as the ESA. According to Samadi, the regulatory filing stems from a position of growing alarm regarding the operational trajectory and strategic oversight of the Safe ecosystem since early 2025. Greenfield pointed to a combination of underperformance relative to the broader digital asset market and a stark absence of independent, objective voices on the foundation’s board as primary catalysts for the regulatory intervention.

Samadi explained that after dedicating more than a year to extensive research, internal dialogue, and patient negotiations, his firm ultimately reached the conclusion that Safe cannot achieve its true market potential under its current governance framework.

In response to the development, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, Samuel Akpan, stated that the foundation had not yet received a formal inquiry or notification from the ESA. Akpan declined to offer further comments regarding the specific allegations or the potential merits of the regulatory complaint.

The emergence of this high-stakes governance dispute coincides with a critical financial juncture for the project. Safe has publicly stated ambitious targets aimed at reaching financial break-even and doubling its revenue metrics over the course of 2026. In an official corporate announcement released in February, the project reported generating more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the conclusion of 2025. Looking further ahead, the foundation outlined a strategic long-term ambition to scale its operations toward $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Despite the optimistic financial projections laid out by project leadership, Greenfield Capital expressed deep skepticism regarding these targets, highlighting recent figures that paint a less glowing picture of the project’s commercial momentum. The investment firm specifically directed attention to Safe’s second-quarter revenue of $1.98 million. When annualized, this performance translates to a run rate of roughly $8 million, falling significantly short of the $20 million expectation that project stakeholders anticipated for 2026.

Greenfield argued that Safe is progressively losing ground in the Web3 ecosystem despite a generally favorable growth environment for the broader cryptocurrency industry. Samadi pointed to specific data covering a two-and-a-half-year span, noting that between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held securely within Safe accounts experienced a steep drop, tumbling from $66 billion down to $30 billion. This represents a contraction of more than 50% over the period. In stark contrast, the total value locked across the broader decentralized finance landscape expanded by roughly 40%.

The venture capital firm underscored similar underperformance metrics across other key sectors of the digital asset economy. Over the same timeframe, the total circulating supply of stablecoins grew by approximately 135%. However, the volume of stablecoins held inside Safe accounts on the Ethereum network expanded by a modest 11%. Furthermore, Safe’s historical dominance over the stablecoin market eroded notably, with its share of circulating USDC falling from 12.8% down to just 2.5%.

Samadi emphasized the gravity of these figures within the context of market trends, noting that in the exact sector where self-custody infrastructure should be thriving and capturing demand, Safe has systematically lost market share for an extended period.

At the core of Greenfield’s critique is the composition and independence of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation board. Samadi attributed many of the operational setbacks and strategic missteps to a fundamental lack of independent board members possessing the requisite financial and strategic decision-making experience.

Furthermore, the open letter raised direct concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest within the existing leadership structure. Specifically, Greenfield highlighted board member Stefan George’s ongoing professional responsibilities and affiliations at Gnosis, alongside fellow board member Richard Meissner’s direct ties to various commercial entities engaged in the active development and operation of Safe products.

To address these concerns, Greenfield revealed that it had spent several months attempting to persuade the foundation to voluntarily restructure its governance. These proposals included replacing George and expanding the overall size of the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited professionals with specialized expertise in traditional finance, rigorous risk management, and long-term business strategy.

Having exhausted its avenues for private diplomacy, Greenfield is now formally asking the Swiss federal watchdog to examine the foundation’s internal governance practices and determine whether corrective regulatory measures are necessary to safeguard the interests of the ecosystem.