Security investors call on Swiss regulators to intervene in governance disputes

Greenfield Capital files complaint with Swiss regulators over Safe governance issues

Safe's investor Greenfield Capital said it has filed a regulatory complaint with the Swiss foundation regulator, the Federal Agency for the Supervision of Foundations (ESA), escalating concerns about Safe's governance structure. The move comes after months of communication with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, which, according to Greenfield, has failed to resolve a series of questions about how it operates.

In an open letter released to the Safe community on Sunday, Jascha Samadi, founding partner of Greenfield, pointed out that the complaint was aimed at promoting reform of the foundation's board of directors and believed that under the current governance structure, Safe would be difficult to achieve its stated goals. The complaint comes as Safe is actively pursuing its 2026 financial goals, which include plans to break even and significantly increase revenue.

Core Points

• Greenfield Capital has filed a regulatory complaint with the Swiss Federal Authority for the Supervision of Foundations (ESA) over governance issues with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation.
• Greenfield said that after months of direct communication, its concerns about the composition of the board had not been resolved.
• Investors note that Safe's market share in stablecoin holdings is weakening and its growth rate is slowing compared to broader DeFi and stablecoin trends.
• Greenfield alleges potential conflicts of interest among certain board members and their professional connections.
• The core of the controversy is whether foundations should implement governance corrections and introduce more independent expertise.

Moving from communication to regulatory oversight

Greenfield's regulatory complaint targeted the Safe Ecosystem Foundation's governance structure. Samadi wrote that after "more than a year" of research, dialogue and patience, his company concluded that Safe cannot realize its potential under the current board structure.

Although Greenfield did not describe the issue as sudden sabotage, it believed that since early 2025, underlying governance methods have failed to keep up with the industry. In particular, the company said it was increasingly concerned about the lack of independent voices on boards and the decision-making experience they represent.

This open letter puts the governance controversy in the context of Safe's business ambitions. In February, Safe outlined a path to break even and reported that annualized revenue for the entire ecosystem had exceeded $10 million by the end of 2025. With broader goals and long-term goals, Safe has set out an ambition to achieve $100 million in annual recurring revenue by 2030.

Revenue goals conflict with growth concerns

Greenfield acknowledges Safe's goals, but believes the foundation's governance has failed to help turn ambitions into market appeal. The company cited second-quarter revenue data of $1.98 million and described it as an annualized operating rate of $8 million-well below the $20 million forecast for 2026.

To support the argument that Safe is losing ground as the crypto market expands, Greenfield cited multiple datasets. It said that from January 2024 to August 2026, the total value held in Safe accounts fell from US$66 billion to US$30 billion, a drop of more than 50%. The comparison is in terms of broader DeFi activity growth, with Greenfield noting that the total locked value in DeFi increased by 40% over the same period, and citing Dune's data as a reference for Safe accounts.

Greenfield also highlighted the dynamics of stablecoins. Using DefiLlama's stablecoin supply data as a background, it said that from January 2024 to August 2026, the total stablecoin supply increased by approximately 135%. However, it claims that the stablecoins held in Safe on Ethereum have only increased by 11%, and Safe's share of USDC in circulation has dropped from 12.8% to 2.5%.

Greenfield's core proposition is that Safe is underperforming in the areas where it is positioned as a leader-namely self-managed infrastructure and wallet-related usage. Samadi concluded in an open letter that Safe "has lost ground" in one of the fastest-growing categories where self-managed infrastructure is considered particularly relevant, and that has lasted for about two and a half years.

Allegations of board independence and alleged conflicts of interest

A core element of Greenfield's complaint is the composition of the board. Samadi argued that the foundation lacked independent directors with "extensive decision-making experience", which he believed was crucial to guiding Safe into the next stage.

Greenfield还指控董事会成员存在与其相关的利益冲突。公开信特别提到了Stefan George在Gnosis的角色，并指出另一位董事会成员Richard Meissner与开发和运营Safe产品的公司有关联。

Greenfield表示，在向监管机构求助之前，它曾试图推动治理变革。据该公司称，它花费数月时间要求基金会重组治理，包括替换George，并从外部招募额外的独立董事以扩大董事会规模。它表示，拟议的独立专业知识将涵盖金融、风险管理和商业战略等领域。

据报道，这些讨论未能产生其所寻求的重组结果，Greenfield现在要求瑞士监管机构审查Safe生态系统基金会的治理，并确定是否需要采取纠正步骤。

为何这场争议对Safe用户和投资者至关重要

治理决策通常被视为内部事务，但Greenfield的框架将董事会监督与绩效结果联系起来——特别是在稳定币和账户价值指标方面的吸引力。无论ESA是否发现治理缺陷，都可能影响Safe调整战略、加强董事会监督和问责机制的速度。

同时，这场争议凸显了目标与执行之间的紧张关系。Safe的收入雄心和收支平衡轨迹——在今年2月概述并与收入报告挂钩——正面临一位投资者的审视，该投资者指出了慢于预期的增长指标以及在稳定币流通中不断缩小的份额。

For developers, integrators and users who rely on Safe infrastructure, the regulatory process is not so much about day-to-day technical operations as about the long-term leadership and incentives behind the Ecosystem Foundation. Any governance changes required by regulators may also affect stakeholders 'confidence in interpreting Safe's roadmap and institutional priorities.