Safe<>Gnosis Joint Treasury Community Update - September 2025

[kpk]

The September 2025 Joint Treasury Report is now available on kpk’s website.

kpk is pleased to present its Community Update for the month of September to the broader Safe Community, to increase awareness and transparency of its activities.

Market Update

The digital asset market consolidated in September following the record highs of August. While volatility remained elevated, major assets saw a rebalancing of flows and relative positioning.

Market Performance

• BTC (+4.85% for the month) traded lower after failing to reclaim its $124k ATH, closing September at ~$113k. Market sentiment around BTC weakened amid continued outflows from institutional products.
• ETH (-5.68% for the month) remained resilient, briefly testing the $4.7k level before closing the month at $4.11k. ETH remained the top institutional focus, with derivatives activity and treasury accumulation providing strong demand support.

Institutional Flows

Public ETF data showed that institutional flows cooled in September, with net inflows of ~$1.4 billion into Bitcoin ETFs, while Ethereum ETFs recorded net outflows of ~$669 million, reversing the prior month’s rotation trend toward ETH.

Market Structure & Dominance

• Bitcoin dominance declined from 58% to 55%, driven by ETH’s continued strength and increased participation in mid-cap assets.
• Exchange-related tokens remained in focus, though returns were more muted than in August: OKB (+22%), CRO (+14%), MNT (+8%), KCS (+5%).
• Other notable movers: LINK (+17%), ARB (+12%), DOGE (+9%), while POL (+3%) and PUMP (+2%) slowed after strong August gains.

Underperformers

Underperformers included BONK (-12%), PENGU (-9%), and SKY (-8%), all of which failed to recover from their losses in August.

Market Capitalisation

The total digital asset market capitalisation closed September at $3.72T, down 3.1% MoM, reflecting BTC’s retracement despite resilience across ETH and select altcoins.

Funding & Derivatives

• Off-chain funding rates (Binance):
  • BTC: ranged between 4–9%, with open interest fell from 131 K to 127 K BTC.
  • ETH: ranged between 6–11%, with open interest up slightly from 2.64M to 2.68M ETH.
• On-chain funding rates (Hyperliquid):
  • ETH: ranged between -4–26%.
  • BTC: ranged between 3-24%.
  • Open interest remained balanced, with ETH and BTC both near $3.5B in OI by month-end.

SAFE & Gnosis Token Updates

$SAFE (–17.8%) significantly underperformed BTC (+4.85%) and ETH (–5.68%) through September 2025, continuing its relative weakness from August. Meanwhile, $GNO (+13.3%) outperformed strongly both BTC and ETH, marking a clear decoupling from the market trend and reaching multi-month highs in mid-September.

The current circulating supply of the $SAFE token stands at approximately ≈647 M SAFE (~64.7% of total supply), reflecting a monthly unlocked expansion of around 2% based on the initial tokenomics. In comparison, the $GNO token currently has a circulating supply of about 2.64 M GNO out of 3 M total, meaning roughly 88% of the total supply is already in circulation.

The correlation analysis for September 2025 reveals a nuanced picture of how these tokens moved relative to one another. $SAFE displayed a moderate relationship with BTC (0.596) and a much stronger alignment with ETH (0.841), showing that its price continues to follow Ethereum’s market direction more closely than Bitcoin’s. $GNO maintained a high correlation with both ETH (0.922) and BTC (0.724), confirming its position as a more market-sensitive asset overall. Finally, the SAFE and GNO correlation at 0.778 indicates a solid but not perfect connection between the two Gnosis-ecosystem tokens, suggesting overlapping but distinct investor dynamics and market drivers.

JT Update

Financial Update

Asset Allocation

• Joint Treasury’s AUM stood at $21.5M at the end of September, with 80.3% in $SAFE, 11.5% in ETH, and 6.2% in stablecoins.
• Asset utilisation remains low at 26%, as most of the Joint Treasury remains concentrated in $SAFE with limited onchain usage. Virtually all non-$SAFE assets are deployed to generate yield or support $SAFE liquidity.
• Usage of Joint Treasury assets can be divided into three broad categories:
  • SAFE Usage: 8.5% of $SAFE is currently being used for providing on-chain $SAFE liquidity on both Uniswap v3 Ethereum Mainnet and Balancer Gnosis Chain;
  • ETH DeFi: 93.1% of ETH is currently being used to earn yield on Liquid Staking Protocols (Lido, Stakewise), and the remaining 6.9% is used to provide on-chain $SAFE Usage on Uniswap v3 Ethereum Mainnet.
  • Stablecoin DeFi: 100% xDAI currently held in sDAI on Gnosis Chain, earning the DAI Savings Rate.

$SAFE On-chain Liquidity Management

• The main avenue for on-chain $SAFE liquidity management is Uniswap V3 on Ethereum Mainnet, using multiple ranges to ensure sufficient liquidity through market volatility.
• $SAFE liquidity remains healthy on mainnet, and $10k swaps can be conducted with following levels of slippage:
  • $10k Purchase (ETH → SAFE) can be conducted with 193bp price impact on Uniswap v3; on CoW, the slippage is 45bp.
  • $10k Sale (SAFE → ETH) can be conducted with a 75bp price impact on Uniswap V3; on CoW, the impact is 145bp.

[Ibrahim313]

Safe token looks to be in some serious trouble! What are some ideas that can help get this trend reversed, can we have an open discussion about this? @lukas @adamhurwitz.eth

[CLEMJ]

A Critical Look at the SAFE Token — Has It Really Lived Up to Its Name?

The recent performance of the SAFE token raises serious questions about its purpose, its direction, and whether the project is truly honouring the trust of its community. A drop of over 95% from its all-time high is not something that can be brushed aside as normal market volatility. For a token that markets itself around “safety” and “protection”, this price action feels completely out of alignment with the values it claims to represent.

At this point, the community deserves to ask hard questions:

• Is the SAFE token genuinely being used to protect or uphold anyone’s reputation?
  If the token is meant to be part of a “reputation layer,” then its catastrophic decline directly contradicts that narrative. How can a token safeguard or represent reputation when its own value has collapsed to this degree?

• What is the real utility right now?
  Many holders still don’t see a clear, functioning use case that justifies its existence, let alone its valuation. Promises and concepts are not enough anymore — especially after a 95% drawdown.

• Why is there so little transparency about the roadmap and execution?
  If the team wants the community’s confidence, there needs to be more concrete progress and fewer vague statements. After such a massive decline, silence is not acceptable.

SAFE holders deserve honesty, accountability, and clarity about what’s happening — and where this project is actually going. If the token continues to fall without any meaningful updates or demonstrated utility, people will inevitably question whether the project is truly aligned with the values it claims to stand for.

At this point, the community isn’t asking for hype — it’s asking for answers.

[rosebusk]

In fact, the team had already sold off their tokens, cost all the funding with high salaries, and then build a shit in three years. They don’t care any COMMUNITY. That’s why forum and discord are dead and even safe PR twitter.