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

Crypto investor Greenfield Capital has escalated a prolonged dispute with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, filing a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The legal action seeks mandatory changes to the foundation’s board following months of private engagement that failed to resolve escalating concerns regarding leadership, strategic direction, and market performance.

In an open letter addressed to the broader Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi announced that the firm had petitioned Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). According to Samadi, the regulatory intervention became necessary after his firm grew increasingly concerned about the overall trajectory of the Safe ecosystem since early 2025. The investor pointed to lagging performance metrics relative to the wider cryptocurrency market and a conspicuous absence of independent voices on the foundation’s governing board as primary catalysts for the complaint.

"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, detailing the frustration that led to the regulatory escalation.

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 from the ESA. Consequently, the foundation declined to comment directly on the specific details or merits of the potential complaint.

The unfolding governance dispute arrives at a critical juncture for the project, which is currently targeting financial break-even and a doubling of its revenue streams throughout 2026. In an official corporate announcement published in February, the Safe project reported more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue at the close of 2025. Furthermore, leadership 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 financial projections shared by project leadership, Greenfield Capital presented a starkly different evaluation of Safe’s financial health and commercial momentum. The investment firm highlighted second-quarter revenue figures of $1.98 million, which translate to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million. Greenfield noted that this performance falls significantly short of the internal expectations and milestones required to achieve the $20 million revenue target set for 2026.

Beyond top-line revenue concerns, Greenfield argued that Safe was steadily losing ground in a broader crypto market that has otherwise experienced robust expansion. Samadi pointed to specific on-chain data spanning from January 2024 to August 2026, which revealed that the total value held within Safe accounts plummeted from $66 billion down to $30 billion. This represents a decline of more than 50% over a two-and-a-half-year period, contrasting sharply with the wider decentralized finance sector, where total value locked grew by roughly 40%.

The investor analysis also highlighted a widening gap in stablecoin adoption. Over the same timeframe, the total supply of stablecoins across the industry expanded by approximately 135%. However, stablecoins held within Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a modest 11%. More alarmingly for the firm, Safe’s overall share of circulating USDC 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, underlining the core economic argument behind the regulatory challenge.

The investment firm attributed many of these strategic and operational shortcomings to systemic governance issues, specifically pointing to a lack of independent board members possessing experienced, objective decision-making capabilities. Furthermore, Greenfield raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest within the existing leadership structure. The firm cited board member Stefan George’s concurrent role at Gnosis, alongside fellow board member Richard Meissner’s professional ties to various entities actively engaged in developing and operating Safe-related products.

Before filing the supervisory complaint in Switzerland, Greenfield stated that it had spent several months pressing the foundation to restructure its leadership. These private proposals included replacing George and expanding the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited members with specialized expertise in finance, risk management, and long-term business strategy. Having exhausted internal avenues, the firm is now asking the Swiss regulatory watchdog to conduct a comprehensive examination of the foundation’s governance practices and determine whether immediate corrective measures are warranted.