Greenfield Files Complaint Over Safe’s Governance Disputes

Greenfield Capital, a major investor in Safe, has escalated its concerns over governance by filing a complaint with Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA). The firm claims that after months of engagement with the Safe Ecosystem Foundation, its questions about board operations and independence went unaddressed. In an open letter to the Safe community, Greenfield founding partner Jascha Samadi argued that the current governance structure prevents Safe from achieving its goals, particularly as the project aims for aggressive financial targets by 2026.

Greenfield’s complaint highlights Safe’s reported second-quarter revenue of $1.98 million, which it describes as falling short of a $20 million expectation for 2026. The investor also points to a decline in Safe accounts’ total value, from $66 billion in January 2024 to $30 billion in August 2026, a drop of over 50%. Despite broader DeFi activity growing by 40% and stablecoin supply increasing by 135% during the same period, Safe’s share of USDC in circulation fell from 12.8% to 2.5%.

The core of Greenfield’s complaint centers on the composition of Safe’s board, which it claims lacks independent voices and experienced decision-makers. Samadi specifically cited potential conflicts of interest involving board members Stefan George and Richard Meissner, due to their professional ties to Gnosis and Safe-related products. Greenfield had previously attempted to push for governance changes, including replacing George and adding independent members with expertise in finance, risk management, and business strategy.

The dispute underscores a broader tension between Safe’s ambitious revenue targets and its actual market performance. While Safe has outlined plans to reach $100 million in annual recurring revenue by 2030, Greenfield argues that the foundation’s governance has not supported this growth. The outcome of the ESA’s review could influence Safe’s strategy, board oversight, and long-term leadership, affecting stakeholders’ confidence in the project’s roadmap.