Greenfield Capital Files Swiss Regulatory Complaint Against Safe Ecosystem Foundation Amid Governance Dispute

Greenfield Capital, a prominent investor in the Safe ecosystem, has escalated a prolonged disagreement over project leadership by filing a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The venture capital firm is seeking targeted interventions and structural changes to the Safe Ecosystem Foundation’s board, arguing that months of private dialogue and engagement have failed to resolve deep-seated governance concerns that it believes are hampering the platform’s market performance.

In an open letter addressed to the wider Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi detailed the decision to bring the matter before Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). According to Samadi, the regulatory filing stems from a growing sense of alarm regarding the operational and strategic direction of Safe since early 2025. The firm points to a widening gap between Safe’s actual performance relative to the broader digital asset market, alongside what it characterizes as a critical absence of independent voices and objective oversight on the foundation board.

After more than a year of research, careful dialogue, and considerable patience, Greenfield has reached the conclusion that Safe cannot reach its true potential under its current governance framework. The venture firm asserts that structural reforms are no longer optional if the project hopes to maintain its competitive edge in the rapidly evolving self-custody and decentralized finance landscape.

In response to the development, Samuel Akpan, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, stated that the organization has not yet received a formal inquiry from the ESA. The foundation has declined to comment directly on the specific details of the potential regulatory complaint at this stage.

The governance dispute emerges at a delicate financial juncture for the project. Safe has publicly targeted a business break-even milestone and a doubling of its revenue throughout 2026. In an official announcement released in February, the project reported generating more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the close of 2025. Furthermore, leadership outlined an ambitious long-term roadmap aimed at achieving $100 million in annual recurring revenue by the year 2030.

Greenfield Questions Safe’s Revenue Growth and Market Share

Despite the optimistic forward-looking projections shared by project leadership, Greenfield Capital has highlighted performance metrics that it views as deeply concerning. The investor pointed to $1.98 million in revenue recorded during the second quarter, which translates to an annualized run rate of approximately $8 million. Greenfield notes that this figure falls drastically short of the $20 million revenue expectation currently set for 2026.

The venture firm argues that Safe is steadily losing ground to competitors, failing to capitalize on the broader tailwinds propelling the wider cryptocurrency economy. Samadi noted that between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held within Safe accounts experienced a sharp decline, dropping from $66 billion down to $30 billion—a contraction exceeding 50 percent. Over that exact same timeframe, the total value locked across the broader decentralized finance sector expanded by roughly 40 percent.

Additional market indicators cited by Greenfield reinforce the narrative of a project struggling to maintain momentum in core sectors. While the aggregate global supply of stablecoins expanded by approximately 135 percent over the measurement period, the volume of stablecoins held inside Safe accounts on the Ethereum network grew by a meager 11 percent. Most notably, Safe’s market share of circulating USDC suffered a steep drop, falling from 12.8 percent down to 2.5 percent.

Samadi emphasized the irony of these figures given current market trends, noting that in the exact sector that has experienced the most aggressive expansion—and one where self-custody infrastructure should theoretically be best positioned to capture market share—Safe has steadily lost ground over the span of two and a half years.

The investor attributes many of these systemic challenges directly to a lack of independent board members possessing deep, experienced decision-making capabilities suited to managing a top-tier crypto infrastructure asset. Furthermore, the firm raised specific governance red flags regarding potential conflicts of interest on the foundation board. Greenfield pointed to board member Stefan George and his ongoing professional role at Gnosis, alongside fellow board member Richard Meissner, whose professional ties extend to various commercial entities actively developing and operating Safe-related products.

To address these concerns, Greenfield stated that it had spent several months formally requesting that the foundation restructure its internal governance framework. These proposals included replacing George and expanding the board to incorporate independent, externally recruited members with specialized expertise in corporate finance, institutional risk management, and long-term business strategy. Having exhausted internal avenues without success, the firm is now asking the Swiss regulatory watchdog to examine the foundation’s administrative practices and determine whether corrective legal or structural measures are necessary to safeguard the ecosystem’s future.