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

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 regulatory step aims to compel structural changes within the foundation’s board following what Greenfield describes as months of stalled dialogue and unresolved governance issues.

The developments were made public through an open letter published to the Safe community by Jascha Samadi, a founding partner at Greenfield Capital. According to Samadi, the decision to approach Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA) stems from mounting anxieties regarding the long-term trajectory and operational health of Safe. These concerns began to accumulate in early 2025, driven by the project’s underwhelming financial and market performance relative to the broader digital asset economy, alongside a perceived absence of independent oversight on the foundation board.

Samadi explained in his open letter that after more than a year of intensive research, private dialogues, and considerable patience, his firm ultimately reached the conclusion that Safe cannot achieve its true potential under its current governance framework.

In response to the filing, Samuel Akpan, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, stated that the organization has not yet received any formal inquiry from the ESA and declined to offer further comments regarding the specific allegations or the potential administrative complaint.

The surfacing governance dispute arrives at a critical juncture for Safe, which has set ambitious financial targets for the near future, including reaching a break-even point and doubling its revenue generation throughout 2026. Earlier in February, the project released financial figures indicating that it had accumulated more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the close of 2025. Furthermore, the organization outlined a strategic roadmap targeting a much larger milestone: achieving $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Traction

Despite the ambitious forward-looking projections articulated by Safe’s leadership, Greenfield Capital has raised pointed questions regarding the reality of the project’s revenue growth. The venture firm highlighted recent financial data showing that Safe brought in $1.98 million during the second quarter. This performance translates to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million, a figure that Greenfield notes falls drastically short of the $20 million revenue expectation set for 2026.

Beyond the immediate revenue figures, Greenfield argued that Safe is steadily losing ground within the digital asset sector despite a generally expanding broader crypto market. Samadi pointed to specific longitudinal data spanning from January 2024 to August 2026, during which the total value held within Safe accounts experienced a sharp decline, dropping from $66 billion down to $30 billion. This represents a contraction of more than 50% over a two-and-a-half-year period, contrasting sharply with the overall decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem, where total value locked grew by roughly 40%.

Additional metrics cited in the critique highlight a similar divergence in stablecoin adoption. Over the same timeframe, the total circulating supply of stablecoins across the market expanded by approximately 135%. However, stablecoins held within Safe vaults on the Ethereum network grew by a modest 11%. More concerning to the investor, Safe’s market share of USD Coin (USDC) in global circulation dropped significantly from 12.8% down to just 2.5%.

Samadi emphasized the paradox of these figures given Safe’s positioning in the industry, noting that in the exact sector of the market that has experienced the most substantial growth—and one that self-custody infrastructure is ideally structured to serve—Safe has steadily surrendered market share for more than two years.

Greenfield attributes these performance trends directly to structural deficiencies within the foundation’s leadership, specifically pointing to a lack of independent board members possessing experienced, objective decision-making capabilities. The firm’s criticisms also extend to alleged conflicts of interest, highlighting board member Stefan George’s concurrent role at Gnosis, as well as fellow board member Richard Meissner’s professional ties to various entities actively developing and operating Safe products.

For months, Greenfield has urged the foundation to restructure its leadership by replacing George and broadening the composition of the board with independent, externally recruited professionals who bring specialized expertise in finance, risk management, and strategic business development. With those private overtures failing to yield structural reforms, Greenfield is now asking the Swiss regulatory watchdog to formally investigate the foundation’s governance practices and determine whether mandatory corrective measures are necessary to protect the interests of the ecosystem.