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

Venture capital firm Greenfield Capital has escalated its ongoing disputes with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, announcing that it has officially filed a supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s federal foundation watchdog. The legal and administrative move aims to compel structural changes within the foundation’s board of directors, following what Greenfield describes as months of unsuccessful private engagement and dialogue regarding deep-seated governance concerns.

In an open letter addressed to the wider Safe community, Jascha Samadi, a founding partner at Greenfield Capital, detailed the motivations behind the regulatory action. He explained that the complaint submitted to Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA) stems from mounting disquiet within his firm regarding the trajectory and management of Safe since the beginning of 2025. According to Samadi and Greenfield’s extensive internal assessments, the project’s market performance has lagged significantly behind the broader cryptocurrency sector, a trend they directly link to a persistent lack of independent, experienced oversight on the foundation 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 exhausted avenues of private negotiation.

In response to inquiries regarding the regulatory action, Samuel Akpan, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, stated that the organization has not yet received a formal notification or inquiry from the ESA. Consequently, the foundation declined to comment on the specific details or potential merits of the supervisory complaint at this time.

The surfacing of this high-stakes governance dispute coincides with a critical strategic period for Safe. The project has publicly outlined ambitious financial targets, aiming to achieve a financial break-even point and double its overall revenue throughout the 2026 fiscal year. In a corporate announcement published in early February, Safe project leadership reported that it had generated more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the close of 2025. Looking further ahead, the initiative outlined a long-term strategic ambition to scale its operations to $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Despite the optimistic forward-looking projections issued by Safe’s leadership, Greenfield Capital has raised pointed questions regarding the reality of the project’s current revenue growth and its actual performance metrics. The venture firm highlighted recent financial data indicating that Safe recorded $1.98 million in revenue during the second quarter. When annualized, this figure translates to a run rate of approximately $8 million, a performance metric that Greenfield notes falls far short of the anticipated $20 million revenue expectation set for 2026.

Furthermore, Greenfield argued that Safe is steadily losing ground within the digital asset ecosystem despite a generally favorable growth environment for the broader crypto market. Samadi pointed to specific longitudinal data spanning from January 2024 through August 2026, noting that the total value held within Safe accounts experienced a dramatic contraction. Over this two-and-a-half-year window, funds secured in Safe accounts fell from $66 billion down to $30 billion, representing a decline of more than 50%. This downward trend sharply contrasts with the broader decentralized finance landscape, where total value locked expanded by roughly 40% over the same timeframe.

Additional metrics cited by the investor paint a similar picture of relative market contraction. While the total global supply of stablecoins surged by approximately 135% during the evaluation period, the volume of stablecoins held inside Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a modest 11%. More strikingly, Safe’s historical dominance over specific asset categories eroded significantly, with its share of circulating USD Coin dropping 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, underscoring what his firm views as a severe failure to capitalize on organic market demand for secure self-custody solutions.

Greenfield attributes these widening performance gaps primarily to structural deficiencies within the foundation’s leadership, specifically pointing to a lack of independent board members possessing deep, objective decision-making experience. The investor’s critique also raised specific allegations concerning potential conflicts of interest at the board level. The firm highlighted board member Stefan George’s concurrent professional roles and affiliations with Gnosis, alongside fellow board member Richard Meissner’s direct ties to various corporate entities involved in developing and operating underlying Safe products.

To remedy these perceived conflicts and strategic misalignments, Greenfield reported that it spent months pushing the foundation to voluntarily restructure its governance framework. These proposals included replacing George and expanding the composition of the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited professionals who bring specialized expertise in corporate finance, enterprise risk management, and long-term business strategy. Having exhausted collaborative avenues, Greenfield is now calling upon the Swiss federal watchdog to independently examine the foundation’s internal governance structures and determine what corrective measures may be legally and operationally necessary to protect the ecosystem’s future.