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

Greenfield Capital, a prominent investor in the Safe ecosystem, has escalated a prolonged dispute regarding the project’s strategic direction by filing a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s foundation watchdog. The legal action seeks targeted changes to the Safe Ecosystem Foundation’s board of directors, following what Greenfield describes as more than a year of failed internal engagement and mounting concerns over the platform’s market performance.

In an open letter addressed to the wider Safe community on a Sunday, Jascha Samadi, a founding partner at Greenfield Capital, detailed the decision to approach Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). Samadi stated that his firm has grown increasingly alarmed by the trajectory of Safe since the beginning of 2025, pointing specifically to lagging financial and operational performance relative to the broader digital asset market, alongside an acute absence of independent voices within the foundation’s leadership structure.

According to Samadi, Greenfield’s choice to bring the matter before Swiss regulators is the culmination of extensive research, dialogue, and patience. The firm ultimately concluded that the Safe project cannot fulfill its long-term potential under its current governance framework.

In response to the filing, a spokesperson for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, Samuel Akpan, stated that the foundation has not yet received any formal inquiry from the ESA. The foundation declined to offer further commentary regarding the specific details or merits of the prospective complaint.

The emergence of this governance dispute coincides with a critical financial milestone for the project. Safe has publicly targeted a business break-even point and a doubling of its revenue throughout 2026. In a corporate announcement released in February, the project reported generating more than $10 million in project-wide annualized revenue by the close of 2025, while outlining an ambitious longer-term vision to scale 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 publicized by the project, Greenfield Capital has highlighted contrasting data that calls the current operational trajectory into question. 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 argues that this figure falls significantly short of the projected $20 million benchmark established for 2026.

Beyond direct financial figures, the investment firm contends that Safe is steadily losing ground despite a generally favorable growth environment across the broader cryptocurrency sector. Samadi noted that between January 2024 and August 2026, the total value held within Safe accounts experienced a steep decline of over 50 percent, plummeting from $66 billion down to $30 billion. Over that same timeframe, the total value locked across decentralized finance markets grew by approximately 40 percent.

Market metrics concerning stablecoins present a similarly challenging picture according to Greenfield’s analysis. While the total supply of stablecoins across the ecosystem grew by roughly 135 percent, the volume of stablecoins held inside Safe accounts on the Ethereum network expanded by only 11 percent. Furthermore, Safe’s market share of USDC in circulation dropped precipitously from 12.8 percent down to 2.5 percent.

Samadi emphasized the disparity during a time when self-custody infrastructure should naturally capture broader market adoption, noting that in the category which has experienced the most substantial overall growth, Safe has been continuously losing ground for two and a half years.

The investor attributed these performance shortfalls primarily to the composition of the foundation’s board, citing a lack of independent members capable of providing objective, experienced decision-making. Greenfield’s critique also raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest, specifically pointing to board member Stefan George and his ongoing role at Gnosis, alongside fellow board member Richard Meissner and his professional ties to external entities involved in developing and operating Safe products.

Before turning to regulatory authorities, Greenfield spent months urging the foundation to undergo a comprehensive governance restructuring. These private proposals included replacing George and expanding the board to include independently recruited members who bring specialized expertise in corporate finance, risk management, and strategic business development. With those internal appeals unsuccessful, the Swiss watchdog is now being asked to examine the foundation’s oversight and determine whether formal corrective measures are necessary.