Safe Foundation Under Fire: Early Investor Files Complaint with Swiss Regulator
TREE NEWS reports: Greenfield Capital, an early backer of Safe, has filed a formal complaint with Switzerland’s Federal Foundation Supervisory Authority (ESA) alleging serious governance failures at the Safe Ecosystem Foundation. The complaint centers on events following the February 2025 Bybit hack, when Safe Foundation director and Gnosis co-founder Stefan George, alongside Gnosis co-founder Martin Köppelmann, allegedly demanded that other Safe directors and co-founders surrender substantial amounts of SAFE tokens. The pair threatened to sell Gnosis’s entire SAFE holdings—approximately 10% of total supply—and publicly sever ties with Safe if their demands were not met. Multiple sources have reportedly confirmed that the token redistribution ultimately took place.
Governance Independence at Stake
Beyond the token pressure allegations, Greenfield’s complaint accuses the Safe Foundation board of lacking independence and harboring conflicts of interest. Notably, Stefan George’s Gnosis previously operated a wallet product that directly competed with Safe{Wallet}. Greenfield had previously requested Stefan George’s removal and the appointment of independent external directors, but those requests were rejected by the Foundation. Greenfield emphasizes that the regulatory complaint is not a personal lawsuit nor an attempt to seize control of Safe, but rather a call for proper governance and accountability.
Industry Implications: The Fragility of DAO Governance
This case underscores a recurring tension in decentralized ecosystems: even when a protocol operates on-chain, the foundation or legal entity behind it often retains significant centralized control. When key stakeholders use token holdings as leverage during crises, it can undermine trust and set dangerous precedents. The Bybit hack already strained confidence in Safe’s security model; now, governance disputes threaten to erode it further. Investors and users may begin demanding clearer separation of powers, transparent board compositions, and enforceable codes of conduct for foundation directors.
Forward-Looking: Regulatory Scrutiny and Reputation Risk
Switzerland’s ESA is known for rigorous oversight of foundations, and this complaint could trigger a formal investigation. Depending on the findings, the Foundation may be forced to restructure its board, adopt stricter conflict-of-interest policies, or face sanctions. For Safe, the reputational risk is substantial—particularly as it seeks to maintain its position as critical infrastructure for smart contract wallets. The outcome will be closely watched by other DAOs and foundations navigating similar governance challenges. Ultimately, this episode may accelerate the push for more robust, legally binding governance frameworks in the decentralized space.
