Governance Under Fire: Early Investor Escalates Concerns to Swiss Regulator
A simmering governance dispute within the Safe ecosystem has broken into the open, as a key early-stage investor takes formal regulatory action. Greenfield Capital has filed a complaint with the Swiss Federal Foundation Supervisory Authority (ESA), challenging the governance practices of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation.
Alarming Metrics: Asset Decline Amid Market Growth
Greenfield's public letter highlights concerning trends. It states that the total value of assets held in Safe smart accounts has plummeted from approximately $66 billion at the start of 2024 to around $30 billion—a drop of more than 50%.
This decline is particularly stark against broader market growth. During the same period, the total value locked (TVL) across all of DeFi increased by roughly 40%, and the global stablecoin supply surged by 135%. In contrast, the stablecoin holdings within Safe grew by only 11%. The investor argues this data indicates Safe is rapidly losing its competitive edge and market share in the expanding self-custody sector.
Independent Review Points to Governance as Root Cause
Faced with what it deemed insufficient transparency from the core team, Greenfield Capital initiated an independent review about a year ago. This process involved former employees, major users, ecosystem developers, and other investors.
The collective finding was that the fundamental issues hampering Safe's performance—spanning strategy, product development, and operations—could be traced back to deficiencies in the foundation's governance structure. The current framework, in their view, is ill-equipped to navigate market dynamics.
Reform Proposals Ignored, Leading to Regulatory Step
Based on the review, Greenfield presented the foundation with a clear set of demands for governance overhaul:
- Board Renewal: Appoint new, experienced, and genuinely independent members to the foundation's board.
- Management Restructuring: Bring in operational leadership with proven experience in scaling infrastructure businesses.
- Comprehensive Review: Task the renewed board with a top-to-bottom assessment of strategy, product roadmap, organizational structure, and tokenomics, establishing clear, quantifiable KPIs.
The investor states that these requests were made repeatedly, both directly and through legal counsel, since late 2025. It found the foundation's response inadequate, citing the creation of a "strategic committee" without decision-making power and the appointment of individuals from existing circles to board vacancies.
With dialogue at an impasse, filing the ESA complaint became the final recourse. Greenfield Capital stressed that this action is not a lawsuit against individuals nor an attempt to take over Safe. It expressed continued support for the work of the Safe Labs operational team and its commitment to remain an ecosystem participant and validator. The sole focus, it claims, is on reforming the foundation's governance and board composition.