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

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

In an open letter addressed to the broader Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi announced that the regulatory action was lodged with Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). According to Samadi, the decision comes after his firm became increasingly concerned about the strategic trajectory and operational health of Safe since early 2025. The investor pointed to what it views as a glaring underperformance relative to the broader cryptocurrency market, alongside a persistent lack of independent oversight voices on the foundation’s board of directors.

"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 ultimately proved fruitless in driving meaningful reform from within.

In response to the developments, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, Samuel Akpan, stated that the foundation had not yet received any formal inquiry or notification from the ESA, while declining to comment on the specific details or merits of the potential complaint.

The emergence of this governance dispute coincides with a critical financial milestone period for the project. Safe has publicly stated its intentions to achieve operational break-even and double its revenue figures throughout 2026. In an official announcement released in February, the project reported that it had generated more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the close of 2025. Furthermore, the project outlined a much broader, longer-term corporate 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 long-term financial targets outlined by leadership, Greenfield Capital expressed deep skepticism, pointing to recent figures that it believes undermine the project’s growth narrative. The investor highlighted a reported $1.98 million in second-quarter revenue, which translates to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million. Greenfield noted that this performance falls drastically short of the internal expectations and benchmarks required to achieve a $20 million revenue run rate for 2026.

Beyond direct financial metrics, the investment firm argued that Safe is steadily losing ground within the decentralized finance ecosystem, failing to capitalize on the broader crypto market’s overall expansion. Providing a comparative analysis, Samadi pointed out that between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held within Safe accounts fell precipitously from $66 billion down to $30 billion, representing a decline of more than 50%. Over that exact same timeframe, the total value locked across the broader decentralized finance landscape grew by roughly 40%.

The discrepancy becomes even more pronounced when examining stablecoin metrics. Over the same multi-year period, the aggregate supply of stablecoins across the cryptocurrency sector expanded by approximately 135%. In contrast, the volume of stablecoins held inside Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a meager 11%. More concerningly, Safe’s overall market share of circulating USD Coin dropped dramatically 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, underlining the core operational friction between the investor and the foundation’s current administration.

Samadi explicitly attributed many of these systemic challenges to what he characterized as a severe deficit of independent board members possessing objective, experienced decision-making capabilities. Beyond the structural composition of the board, the investor raised specific allegations regarding potential conflicts of interest. These concerns centered around board member Stefan George and his ongoing dual roles and affiliations with Gnosis, as well as fellow board member Richard Meissner, whose professional ties are linked to entities actively developing and operating Safe-related products.

To rectify these issues, Greenfield revealed that it had spent several months actively urging the foundation to undergo a comprehensive governance restructuring. The proposed changes included the replacement of George and a deliberate expansion of the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited professionals who possess specialized expertise in traditional finance, corporate risk management, and long-term business strategy.

With those internal appeals failing to yield a voluntary restructuring, Greenfield is now officially asking the Swiss regulatory watchdog to examine the foundation’s governance framework and determine whether regulatory intervention and corrective measures are necessary to protect the interests of stakeholders and the broader community.