Investor of crypto project safe files complaint about governance with regulator

Greenfield Capital has filed an official complaint about the governance of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation. The investor believes that safe is lagging behind the growth of the broader crypto market and wants the governance structure to be adjusted. After months of unsuccessful talks, the case is now with the Swiss Federal Supervisor for Foundations.

In an open letter to the Safe community, Greenfield co-founder Jascha Samadi writes that his company has been increasingly concerned about the situation since the beginning of 2025.

“However, after more than a year of research, dialogue and patience, we have come to the conclusion that safe will not fulfil its potential under the current management,” said Samadi.

The conflict comes at an important time for safe. The project wants to be even by 2026 and at the same time double its turnover. Safe previously reported that sales at the end of 2025, converted to a full year, were above $10 million.

For the longer term, the ambitions are much higher. Safe aims to achieve annual recurring revenue of $100 million by 2030.

Greenfield doubts whether the current performance is sufficient to achieve those goals. According to the investor, sales in the second quarter amounted to 1.98 million dollars. If that pace is sustained for an entire year, sales will be about $8 million.

That is far below the $20 million that safe would aim for by 2026. Greenfield therefore sees a growing difference between the ambitions and the actual financial performance.

The value of assets in Safe accounts has also fallen sharply, according to Greenfield. Between January 2024 and August 2026, it decreased from $66 billion to $30 billion. This more than halves the total value.

According to Greenfield, this is particularly striking because DeFi grew in the same period. DeFi stands for decentralized finance and includes financial applications on the blockchain that allow users to store, trade or lend digital assets, for example.

The total value locked within DeFi protocols increased by about 40 percent over the same period, according to Greenfield.

Greenfield also sees a worrying development in stablecoins. These are digital coins whose value is usually linked to a traditional currency, such as the US dollar. USDC and USDT are among the best known examples.

According to Greenfield, the total supply of stablecoins grew by about 135 percent in the period under review. By contrast, the amount of stablecoins in Safe accounts on Ethereum increased by only 11 percent.

Safe's share of the total amount of USDC in circulation also fell sharply. According to Greenfield, this dropped from 12.8 percent to 2.5 percent.

Samadi sees that development as an important warning sign. Safe provides infrastructure that allows users to maintain control of their digital assets. As a result, according to him, the project should be well positioned to benefit from the growing stablecoin market.

In practice, however, according to Greenfield, safe has been losing ground in this market for about two and a half years.

Greenfield places an important part of the responsibility on the governance structure of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation. According to Samadi, there are not enough independent board members with experience in important strategic decision-making.

The investor also points out possible conflicts of interest. Greenfield mentions, among other things, the role of board member Stefan George at Gnosis. The company also questions the ties of fellow board member Richard Meissner with companies that develop and operate products around safe.

Greenfield therefore wants changes in the board. The investor advocates the replacement of George and wants to attract new, independent board members from outside the existing organizational structure. They should have expertise in finance, risk management and business strategy.

Greenfield claims to have raised these concerns directly with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation for months. Because those discussions did not lead to the desired changes, the investor has now engaged the Swiss Federal Supervisor for Foundations.

The supervisor is asked to assess the governance structure and to determine whether corrective measures are necessary. This shifts the conflict from an internal discussion to a formal procedure with the Swiss regulator.