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

Crypto venture capital firm Greenfield Capital has escalated a prolonged dispute with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, announcing that it has filed a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s federal foundation watchdog. The legal and administrative move is aimed at prompting a structural overhaul and leadership changes within the organization, following what Greenfield describes as months of unsuccessful private engagement over pressing governance issues.

In a detailed open letter addressed to the broader Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi outlined the motivations behind the regulatory action. According to Samadi, the complaint submitted to Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA) was born out of growing apprehension regarding the strategic trajectory and operational health of Safe. Greenfield, a recognized stakeholder and financial backer of the project, argues that the foundation’s current oversight structure is hindering its ability to compete effectively in an expanding digital asset landscape.

The decision to approach Swiss authorities follows what Samadi characterized as an extensive period of behind-the-scenes dialogue, research, and institutional patience. Despite these efforts, the investment firm has concluded that the ecosystem cannot achieve its full commercial or technological potential under the existing leadership framework.

Responding to the development, Samuel Akpan, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, stated that the foundation had not yet received any formal inquiry or notification from the ESA. Consequently, the foundation declined to comment on the specific details or legal merits of the potential complaint at this stage.

The governance clash emerges at a critical juncture for the project, which has publicly set ambitious financial milestones for the coming years. Safe has been actively targeting a business break-even point alongside a doubling of its revenue performance throughout 2026. In a corporate announcement published in February, project leadership reported that it had achieved more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the conclusion of 2025. Furthermore, the organization outlined a longer-term strategic ambition to scale its operations toward $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth

Despite the optimistic forward-looking projections articulated by management, Greenfield Capital has raised significant red flags regarding the actual pace of Safe’s financial expansion. The investor pointed to the project’s reported second-quarter revenue of $1.98 million, a figure that translates to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million. Greenfield argues that this metric falls drastically short of the internal expectations and targets required to hit the anticipated $20 million revenue threshold set for 2026.

Beyond the immediate financial statements, Greenfield’s critique centers on what it perceives as a troubling loss of market share relative to the wider cryptocurrency economy. Samadi highlighted a stark contrast in performance metrics between January 2024 and August 2026. During this roughly two-and-a-half-year window, the total value of assets held within Safe accounts dropped precipitously from $66 billion down to $30 billion, representing a contraction of more than 50%.

This downward trend occurred while the broader decentralized finance sector experienced robust health, with total value locked across DeFi protocols growing by approximately 40% over the exact same timeframe. Greenfield emphasizes that this divergence indicates a systemic failure to capture market momentum.

The investor presented additional data points concerning stablecoin adoption to underscore its concerns. While the aggregate global supply of stablecoins expanded by roughly 135% across the digital asset ecosystem during the tracked period, the volume of stablecoins held inside Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a mere 11%. More specifically, Safe’s market share of USD Coin in active circulation plummeted from 12.8% down to just 2.5%.

For Greenfield, these statistics tell a definitive story about missed opportunities in the fastest-growing sector of the crypto industry. Samadi noted that in the exact market category where self-custody infrastructure is historically best positioned to capture demand and deliver value, Safe has steadily lost ground over an extended period.

At the heart of these operational and financial concerns, Greenfield has placed direct blame on the composition of the foundation’s governing board. The venture firm argues that the foundation suffers from a distinct lack of independent board members possessing the requisite external expertise for experienced, objective decision-making.

Furthermore, the complaint touches upon potential conflicts of interest within the leadership ranks. Greenfield has pointed to board member Stefan George and his ongoing professional roles associated with Gnosis, as well as fellow board member Richard Meissner and his direct ties to various corporate entities engaged in developing and operating core Safe products.

Before taking the step of filing a supervisory complaint in Switzerland, Greenfield stated that it spent many months urging the foundation to voluntarily restructure its governance model. These proposals included replacing George and expanding the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited professionals specialized in corporate finance, enterprise risk management, and long-term business strategy. Having exhausted amicable avenues, Greenfield is now calling upon the Swiss regulatory watchdog to independently examine the foundation’s governance practices and determine whether mandatory corrective measures must be enforced to protect stakeholders and ensure the project’s future viability.