Community Trust ScoreVerified
Greenfield Capital didn’t wait any longer. The crypto investment firm has filed a formal supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations — known as the ESA — targeting the Safe Ecosystem Foundation over what it calls a broken governance structure. Months of internal talks went nowhere. So now it’s a regulator’s problem too.
Why It Matters
This move by Greenfield Capital highlights the growing scrutiny of governance structures within the cryptocurrency ecosystem, as regulatory bodies increasingly become involved in disputes that may affect investor confidence and market stability. The outcome of this complaint could set a precedent for how similar governance issues are addressed in the future, potentially influencing the operational frameworks of other decentralized organizations. As the crypto market matures, the interplay between investment firms and regulatory authorities will be crucial in shaping its evolution and establishing clearer standards for governance.
The complaint came alongside an open letter to the Safe community, signed by Greenfield’s founding partner Jascha Samadi. The letter didn’t mince words. Samadi laid out a detailed case against the foundation’s current board setup, pointing to underperformance, declining market metrics, and what Greenfield sees as serious conflicts of interest sitting right at the top of the organization.
The Numbers Don’t Look Good
Safe’s financial picture is pretty rough right now. The foundation pulled in $1.98 million in second-quarter revenue — which puts the annualized run rate at about $8 million. That’s a long way from the $20 million the project was supposed to hit for 2026. The gap isn’t small. It’s more than half the target, basically gone.
And it’s not like the broader market has been dragging everyone down. Greenfield’s letter made that point clearly. From January 2024 to August 2026, total value held in Safe accounts dropped more than 50% — from $66 billion to $30 billion. Over that same stretch, total value locked across decentralized finance grew by 40%. Safe went the other direction while the rest of DeFi climbed.
Stablecoin figures tell a similar story. The overall stablecoin supply grew by roughly 135% during that period. Stablecoins held in Safe accounts on Ethereum? Up only 11%. Safe’s share of USDC in circulation fell from 12.8% to 2.5%. That’s not a dip. That’s a collapse in market position.
Safe had previously announced over $10 million in annualized revenue at the end of 2025. The ambition on paper is $100 million in annual recurring revenue by 2030. Getting there from an $8 million run rate today would require a lot more than a governance reshuffle — but Greenfield’s argument is that bad governance is exactly what’s making the bigger climb impossible.
Board Conflicts at the Center of the Fight
Greenfield’s sharpest criticism targets two specific board members: Stefan George and Richard Meissner. Samadi’s letter raised concerns about George’s ties to Gnosis and Meissner’s connections to companies actively building products on Safe. Those relationships, per Greenfield, aren’t just awkward — they’re potential conflicts of interest that compromise independent decision-making at the foundation level.
The firm wants George replaced. It also wants new independent board members brought in — people with real backgrounds in finance, risk management, and business strategy, not insiders already tangled up in the Safe ecosystem. Greenfield’s position is that the foundation can’t navigate a competitive, fast-moving crypto market with a board that can’t act independently.
It’s worth noting that Greenfield isn’t a passive bystander here. The firm has been engaged with Safe since at least early 2025, pushing for changes through internal dialogue and research. None of it worked. The board structure didn’t change. The conversations apparently didn’t go anywhere meaningful. So the ESA complaint is the next move — and probably not the last one if the regulator doesn’t act.
What the ESA Complaint Actually Asks For
Greenfield is asking Switzerland’s foundation regulator to do two things: examine Safe’s governance structure and assess whether corrective measures are needed. That’s deliberately broad. It gives the ESA room to act without Greenfield having to dictate exactly what the fix looks like.
Whether the ESA moves quickly is unclear. Swiss foundation regulation isn’t known for speed, and the outcome here depends entirely on how the authority reads the complaint and what it decides falls within its mandate. No timeline has been set publicly.
Safe, for its part, still has real ambitions on the table. Break-even is a stated near-term goal. Doubling revenue in 2026 is another. Those targets look harder to hit with a governance dispute now playing out in front of a regulator. The foundation’s credibility with institutional partners and DeFi developers probably takes a hit the longer this drags on.
Greenfield’s frustration has been building for a while. The firm clearly thinks the current framework can’t get Safe where it needs to go. And with stablecoin market share down from 12.8% to 2.5%, it’s hard to argue the numbers are on the foundation’s side.
Safe’s second-quarter revenue came in at $1.98 million.
Hub: USDC price, news, and analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Greenfield Capital file against Safe Ecosystem Foundation?
Greenfield Capital filed a supervisory complaint with Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA), asking regulators to examine Safe’s governance and assess whether corrective action is needed.
How far is Safe from its 2026 revenue target?
Safe reported $1.98 million in Q2 revenue, giving an annualized run rate of roughly $8 million — well short of the $20 million target for 2026.
