A high-stakes corporate governance battle has erupted within the decentralized finance ecosystem as Greenfield Capital, a prominent investor in Safe, formally escalates its long-standing grievances. Greenfield announced that it has filed a supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA), targeting the Safe Ecosystem Foundation. The move comes after months of private and public engagement failed to resolve the investor’s mounting concerns regarding the foundation’s strategic direction, financial performance, and board composition.
In an open letter addressed to the wider Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi detailed the decision to petition Swiss regulators. Samadi explained that his firm became increasingly alarmed about the trajectory of Safe beginning in early 2025. According to Greenfield, the project’s performance has lagged significantly behind the broader cryptocurrency market, a trend the investor attributes directly to a deficit of independent voices and rigorous oversight on the foundation’s board of directors.
After more than a year of internal research, ongoing dialogue, and prolonged patience, Greenfield concluded that the project simply cannot reach its full potential under its current governance framework. The investor is now asking the Swiss foundation watchdog to examine the foundation’s operational structure and determine whether regulatory intervention or corrective measures are necessary to protect the interests of the ecosystem.
In response to the regulatory complaint, Samuel Akpan, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, stated that the foundation has not yet received a formal inquiry from the ESA. Akpan declined to comment on the specific details or merits of the potential complaint.
The brewing governance dispute arrives at a critical juncture for the project. Safe has publicly set ambitious financial targets, aiming to break even and double its revenue over the course of 2026. In a recent corporate announcement issued in February, the project reported over $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue at the close of 2025, while outlining a long-term strategic ambition to scale toward $100 million in annual recurring revenue by 2030. However, Greenfield’s intervention threatens to cast a shadow over these optimistic financial projections as stakeholders scrutinize the operational realities behind the numbers.
Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share
Challenging the rosy outlook presented by the project’s leadership, Greenfield Capital has pointed to stark financial metrics that it argues paint a picture of stagnation and missed potential. The investor highlighted Safe’s second-quarter revenue of $1.98 million, which translates to an annualized run rate of roughly $8 million. Greenfield noted that this figure falls drastically short of the $20 million revenue expectation that had been anticipated for 2026.
Beyond the immediate revenue figures, Greenfield argued that Safe has been actively losing ground while the rest of the cryptocurrency market expands. Providing empirical backing for its claims, Samadi pointed to data showing that between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held in Safe accounts experienced a steep decline, falling from $66 billion down to $30 billion. This represents a reduction of more than 50% over a two-and-a-half-year period, contrasting sharply with the broader decentralized finance sector, where total value locked grew by approximately 40% over the same timeframe.
The investor also analyzed stablecoin metrics to illustrate the project’s relative decline. Over the identical measurement period, the total global supply of stablecoins expanded by roughly 135%. In contrast, the volume of stablecoins held within Safes on the Ethereum network grew by a meager 11%. Furthermore, Safe’s market share of USD Coin in circulation plummeted from 12.8% to just 2.5%, highlighting a severe erosion of its core user base and utility metrics within the primary sector driving decentralized finance adoption.
Emphasizing the gravity of these trends, Samadi noted that in the very market category that has experienced the most explosive growth—and one that self-custody infrastructure is fundamentally positioned to serve—Safe has steadily lost market share for an extended period.
Greenfield’s critique is not limited to financial performance alone; the investor squarely places the blame for these declining metrics on the foundation’s governance structure. Specifically, Samadi pointed to a lack of independent board members equipped with objective, experienced decision-making capabilities. Furthermore, the firm alleged clear conflicts of interest within the leadership ranks. These allegations specifically target board member Stefan George due to his ongoing role at Gnosis, as well as fellow board member Richard Meissner, citing his deep ties to commercial entities involved in developing and operating Safe-related products.
For months, Greenfield has urged the foundation to fundamentally restructure its governance. These unheeded requests included replacing Stefan George and expanding the governing board to incorporate independent, externally recruited professionals possessing specialized expertise in corporate finance, risk management, and strategic business development. Having exhausted its options through private dialogue, Greenfield is now relying on the Swiss federal watchdog to step in, review the foundation’s administrative practices, and enforce necessary structural changes to safeguard the future of the ecosystem.
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
Crypto Startups & Venture Capital
