Crypto venture capital firm Greenfield Capital has escalated its ongoing dispute with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, announcing that it has filed a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s federal foundation watchdog. The legal move comes after more than a year of private engagement, research, and what Greenfield describes as an exhaustive display of patience that ultimately failed to resolve deep-seated governance concerns regarding the management of the prominent smart-contract wallet infrastructure project.
In an open letter addressed to the broader Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi detailed the motivation behind the complaint filed with Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). According to Samadi, his firm has grown increasingly alarmed about the operational and strategic trajectory of Safe since early 2025. The venture firm’s primary grievances center on Safe’s lagging financial and market performance relative to the broader digital asset economy, alongside a persistent lack of independent oversight and diverse voices on the foundation’s board of directors.
Samadi emphasized that despite extensive dialogue, internal appeals, and a sincere desire to collaborate constructively with the project leaders, Greenfield has arrived at the sobering conclusion that Safe cannot fulfill its long-term potential under its current governance framework. The open letter outlines a series of structural issues that the investor believes are directly hindering the project’s ability to compete effectively in a rapidly evolving Web3 landscape.
In response to the developments, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, Samuel Akpan, stated that the foundation has not yet received a formal inquiry or notification from the Swiss watchdog. Akpan declined to provide further comment regarding the specific details, legal merits, or potential implications of the complaint filed by Greenfield Capital.
The public governance dispute unfolds at a critical juncture for the project, which has publicly stated ambitious financial targets for the coming years. Safe is currently pursuing a strategic roadmap aimed at achieving corporate break-even and doubling its revenue figures throughout 2026. In an official announcement released in February, the project reported generating more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the conclusion of 2025. Furthermore, leadership outlined a longer-term strategic ambition to scale its operations to $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030.
Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth
Despite the optimistic long-term projections shared by project leadership, Greenfield Capital’s assessment of Safe’s current financial metrics paints a far more conservative, and concerning, picture. The investment firm pointed directly to second-quarter revenue figures of $1.98 million, which translates to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million. Greenfield noted that this performance stands significantly below the $20 million revenue expectation that project stakeholders had anticipated for 2026.
Beyond raw financial metrics, Greenfield argued that Safe has been steadily losing ground and market share at a time when the broader cryptocurrency and decentralized finance ecosystems are experiencing robust growth. Samadi highlighted a stark divergence in performance data spanning from January 2024 to August 2026. During this timeframe, the total value held across Safe accounts experienced a steep decline of more than 50%, falling from a robust $66 billion down to $30 billion.
This contraction occurred counter to the broader macroeconomic and sector trends. Over the same multi-year period, the total value locked across the broader decentralized finance industry expanded by roughly 40%. Concurrently, the total circulating supply of stablecoins grew by an estimated 135%. However, the growth of stablecoins held specifically within Safe accounts on the Ethereum network crawled upward by a meager 11%. More alarmingly for the protocol’s proponents, Safe’s market share of circulating USDC collapsed from 12.8% down to just 2.5%.
Emphasizing the gravity of these metrics, Samadi noted that in the very sector category that has expanded the most aggressively—and one where self-custody infrastructure is ideally positioned to capture demand—Safe has systematically lost ground and competitive momentum for two and a half years.
Greenfield attributes many of these systemic challenges directly to the composition and independence of the foundation’s board. The firm’s criticisms focus heavily on a perceived lack of independent board members possessing external, objective financial and strategic expertise. Specifically, the open letter raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest on the board. Samadi pointed to board member Stefan George’s concurrent role at Gnosis, as well as fellow board member Richard Meissner’s professional ties to various entities actively involved in developing and operating products within the Safe ecosystem.
To rectify these issues, Greenfield revealed that it has spent months urging the foundation to undergo a comprehensive governance restructuring. These private recommendations included replacing George on the board and expanding the governing body to incorporate independent, externally recruited professionals with specialized backgrounds in corporate finance, institutional risk management, and long-term business strategy.
Because those private appeals did not yield the desired structural reforms, Greenfield has now turned to Swiss regulatory authorities. The firm is officially asking the ESA to thoroughly examine the foundation’s current governance practices and determine whether mandatory corrective measures are necessary to safeguard the interests of the community and ensure the long-term viability of the project.
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
