*This text is from our interview published on YouTube
The Big Whale: You announced on 3 December the launch of Safenet , a decentralised network that you present as a decentralised alternative to traditional players. What is the aim? Replace Visa?
I wouldn't say "replace" Visa. It's more about building a decentralised infrastructure open to everyone that giants like Visa could also use.
Since I've been in the crypto industry, I'm not interested in memecoins or the idea of "farming" airdrops. What I'm really interested in is the vision of Ethereum and other blockchains aspiring to become settlement-neutral layers of technology where the whole world could coordinate and transact securely.
Although we've made a lot of progress, I think we've strayed a bit from our original mission. The applications we're building today can't connect easily to the real world.
We need a clear direction, a North star metrics . For me, that North star metrics is to move the global economy on-chain , i.e. onto blockchain.
Imagine the entire global economy running on a neutral infrastructure. This would create an open layer for society to coordinate and transact transparently. Yes, it's ambitious, and it won't happen overnight, but it's a goal that the industry must strive towards!
It may seem a little surprising to hear you say this when the crypto industry is more than 10 years old. Isn't this an admission of failure?
Currently, Safe handles around 10% of the volume of transfers on Ethereum, or around $150 billion a year. To put this into perspective, the global economy - measured by annual GDP - is worth around $100 trillion. The volume of transfers from Safe therefore represents roughly 0.15% of global GDP.
Although the comparison has its limits, it shows that the industry has made enormous progress.Should we be satisfied with that? No and our collective mission is to tilt the global economy on-chain .
Visa is a truly impressive infrastructure. They've built a scalable, secure network that enables global payments with sub-second speed. Today, on-chain transactions can't compete with that level of efficiency.
With Safenet, we want to create a decentralised equivalent of Visa. But, it's not about replicating Visa, it's about completely rethinking how payments work.
When people think about payments, they often focus on credit cards - the gesture we all make with the card. But payments are part of a much bigger system. With Safenet, we're taking a holistic approach to payments, designing a new infrastructure capable of supporting the global economy on-chain.
Read our report - How payments specialists integrate digital assets
Can you explain how you imagine Safenet?
To understand Safenet, it helps to first know how Visa works, as the architecture is surprisingly similar. There are two common misconceptions about Visa:
The first is that Visa issues cards because it has its logo on them. In reality, this is not true. Visa does not issue cards, nor does it manage payment terminals.
What Visa actually does is create a virtual network that connects financial entities. For example, they connect a network based in the United States, such as JP Morgan Chase, to that of another bank in Thailand, for example. There are several intermediaries in this system, and Visa's role is to connect all the stakeholders to enable smooth payments.
The second misconception concerns the settlement of payments. When you travel to Thailand, for example, and use your card in a shop, the money is not transferred instantly. The settlement takes place two or three days later.
What happens at the time is that Visa provides a payment performance guarantee. This gives the merchant the assurance that they will receive the money in a few days.
In comparison, blockchain transactions work in a fundamentally different way. In blockchain, the execution and settlement of the transaction are inseparable.
When you make a blockchain transaction, the funds leave your account, calculations are made immediately, smart contracts are executed and, if it's a cross-chain transaction, the money is transferred to its destination - all in a single stream. Execution and settlement cannot be separated.
With Safenet, we want to replicate the "magic" of "Visanet", the network behind Visa, but integrate it on-chain . This means separating the execution and settlement of transactions, as Visa does.
To clarify, is your aim to improve Visa or replace it? What does the future hold for Visa in a on-chain world?
I think Visa will eventually make some on-chain settlements, but it will take time. The central problem with Visa is that it is part of a duopoly with Mastercard. These networks act like gatekeepers, controlling pretty much everything in their system.
Safenet, on the other hand, is a decentralised, trustless solution. It is designed to allow giants like Visa or Mastercard to participate in the network, but without the same exclusive control. Other players, who would not traditionally have access to these systems, could also be integrated into Safenet.
For users, what matters is simply getting the result of their transaction. Whether they buy an NFT on a specific channel or make an in-store purchase, they only care about the result, not the payment process. It's the same in the traditional world: when you shop with Visa, you don't think about the two- or three-day checkout process. To you, it seems instantaneous.
Safenet works in much the same way by separating execution and settlement. Execution happens first - Safenet makes sure the transaction is carried out exactly as the user intended.
Settlement, where the funds leave the user's account, only happens after execution has been verified. This can take minutes or even days. The timing doesn't matter to the user, as long as the process seems smooth - just like with Visa.
Can you give us a simple example of how Safenet works? For example, would it only be possible to send money from one Safe wallet to another Safe wallet, or to any address?
Let's say you want to buy an NFT. This NFT could be on a blockchain on which the user has no funds.
Traditionally, the user has to send funds to a bridge (bridge ), wait - sometimes a few minutes if he's lucky, or several days if he's not - for the funds to appear on the other side. Then he would use those funds to buy the item on the NFT market.
With Safenet, the user could simply transfer funds on blockchain A to blockchain B. He will then initiate an intent to transact to buy the NFT with his funds. Safenet will then execute the transaction for him. This would include the purchase of the NFT and the withdrawal of the necessary funds from the user's account.
Now, a question arises: how do we prevent the user, after obtaining the NFT, from withdrawing the funds before Safenet can retrieve the required asset? This works exactly like Visa, which reserves the necessary funds in the user's account until settlement takes place.
With Safenet, when the transaction is intended, a "resource lock" is applied. This is a technical term for saying that the required assets are frozen for a period of time, allowing Safenet to purchase the NFT and then settle on the account.
It is also crucial that settlement is not based solely on trust in Safenet. This settlement requires Safenet to provide cryptographic proof of validity, guaranteeing that the user's transaction was executed as they intended.
You mentioned that this will be a decentralised network. What role will the SAFE token that you launched at the end of September play?
Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that this network is absolutely not a layer 1 or second-layer solution. It's a new concept, and we need to find the best name to describe it, because it doesn't exist yet.
But we can imagine it as a virtual network that extends over other networks, a bit like an interoperability solution. These networks could be layer 1, 2, 3, or even off-chain networks.
The idea is that this network could also build bridges between the on-chain world and entities like Visa, Mastercard, exchange platforms, bank accounts, and other off-chain financial networks in the future. So it's not just limited to the on-chain settlement layers; it builds a structure linking these different networks.
For validation, one of the key aspects is that a transaction execution takes place, followed by a settlement to the user's account. This settlement must be trustless . This means that funds should only leave the user's account if the transaction has been executed exactly as planned.
For this settlement, a validation process is required to verify transaction execution. A system must ensure that Safenet does not maliciously withdraw funds from the user's account. This requires validators to check these proofs of validity and ensure that settlement only occurs in appropriate cases.
For this, a stake (stake ) is needed, to prevent DDoS attacks (denial of service attack ed. note), align incentives and ensure that all network players behave appropriately. This is where the SAFE token comes in.
Read also - 2024 stablecoin report: an ever richer ecosystem
Is there a barrier to entry to become a validator?
That's the aim. To build Safenet, coordination between many players in the ecosystem is necessary, as it is a network that extends over other networks.
Layer 1, layer 2 or even bridges will play a key role, as Safenet must rely on these existing infrastructures to move assets into the "background" during settlements.
There are also specialist projects that provide liquidity, for example as loan markets or as a kind of clearing house, such as an Everclear-type system.
We are still in the early stages of the project. We haven't precisely identified all the partners for each aspect, but it's a collective effort within the ecosystem.
What's the roll-out timetable?
We officially announced Safenet on 3 December. Then, in the first quarter of 2025, the idea is to launch an initial MVP (minimum viable product) that users will be able to test.
This MVP will be limited to certain use cases, such as salary payments (payroll ), where it will be possible to pay instantly, cheaply, and securely on any chain, without managing the complexity of assets on different blockchains.
Over time, the use cases will expand. There will be more transaction volumes, we will integrate Safenet into existing wallets, and also accelerate in decentralised finance (DeFi).
Next, the network of validators will be introduced during the second quarter, as part of a beta version, which will strengthen Safenet's security, enabling trustless use cases as well as better scaling.
The end goal is complete string abstraction (chain abstraction ). For example, if I want to send a token on any blockchain, this will become possible.
Users don't care about the underlying infrastructure; they just want to interact with their applications and get results. For example, they want to deposit USDC into a lending pool or generate a return on it, without worrying about the risks associated with the infrastructure.
However, initially it will be important to understand which network an application is built on, as the risks differ between networks. Over time, as network standardisation and security become more unified, we will really be able to abstract everything.
Afterwards, as we pointed out at the DevCon conference in Bangkok (which took place in November, editor's note), we mustn't allow the abstraction of the chains to become an abstraction of the risks.
If users can't see what's hiding under the bonnet, they can't see the underlying risks either. This is where Safenet comes in: ensuring that these risks do not rest with the user, but rather with the network's stakeholders. This will be a process to be developed gradually.
It may be a little early to talk about this, but what are your plans for the valuation and price of the SAFE token? Is this a key metric for you?
Given that the role of the SAFE token is, in a sense, to make Safenet trustless , it is essential that the stake (stake ) provided by network stakeholders is commensurate with the risks involved if they act maliciously.
In this context, I am less interested in the price than in how to ensure that participants have a system that deters them from acting maliciously. And if they did, they would be penalised, in the same way that Ethereum validators can be penalised.
The aim is for the punishment to be a sufficient deterrent to prevent any malicious behaviour.
Are you in discussions with Visa or Mastercard, for example, about them joining the SafeNet network? How far advanced are your exchanges with this type of player?
Yes. In fact, a key element of Safenet that I haven't mentioned yet is the role of the processors. You can think of Visa as a payments "processor", but in Safenet it's a network of processors designed to manage transactions for users and then settle with them.
These processors can, for example, manage cross-chain interactions or build bridges between Solana and Ethereum to process transactions. They can also create links between on-chain assets and off-chain systems.
An interesting use case could be a processor managed by a centralised exchange platform allowing trading on the platform without having to move assets on the platform.
The assets would remain completely self-custody (self-custody ) on the blockchain, while guaranteeing the centralised exchange that it can settle in the event of liquidation or trade execution.
Another example is a processor that links your on-chain assets to a Visa network. As such, there is already a project, Gnosis Pay , which has been doing just that for a year. Gnosis Pay is not yet part of Safenet, but it's planned for them to join us.
Gnosis Pay already provides a payment card. The transaction is only triggered when money is needed, linking on-chain wallets to Visa.
Actually, it makes a payment card to access merchant terminals. That's why there are so many cards like Gnosis Pay. But in the long term, your network could make it possible, for example, to use a QR code directly with a Safe wallet, without a card. Do you think this vision is correct?
You can already pay with NFC (Near Field Communication) technology, so a physical card is not necessary.
But the idea is that, even if there are connections with infrastructures like the Visa network in Safenet, over time this could gradually disappear. Eventually, we could imagine crypto payments directly to the merchant's wallet, reducing dependence on Visa and Mastercard.
It's a bit like what Skype did back in the day. When Voice over IP (Voice over IP ) emerged, no one was calling over the internet yet. Skype created a bridge to traditional landlines, allowing people to call a landline number from their Skype account.
Gradually, users began to use Skype directly with each other, bypassing the traditional infrastructure. Safenet is aiming for a similar goal: first to integrate with traditional payment networks like Visa and Mastercard to make it easier to use on-chain assets, and then, over time, to free itself from them.
And what's your plan to attract merchants to Safenet?
Safenet must enable transactions to be executed in less than a second, whether cross-chain or not, in order to provide a seamless experience for on-chain transactions.
Then it will be a matter of working with various parties to build bridges to off-chain systems, such as exchange platforms. The latter could be very interested in a connection with Safenet, as they would have access to users who don't want to transfer their assets onto their balance sheet, but still want to take advantage of the functionalities offered by these platforms.
Given your current developments with Safenet, can we still see you as just a wallet solution? You seem to be offering a broader infrastructure, as you mentioned during this interview.
Until now, before Safenet, Safe was mainly a wallet infrastructure. You can also see it as a central banking system, but on-chain .
The aim was mainly to manage assets via smart accounts. It was about improving the user experience (UX) and security of portfolios and asset management solutions.
What many people don't know is that applications such as World App (WorldCoin's wallet) and PolyMarket (a predictive markets platform) use Safe.
These apps, which have reached millions of users and moved outside the strict confines of crypto this year, use Safe for asset management and self-custody (self-custody ).
With Safenet, Safe evolves to add value to the transaction lifecycle, making their execution smoother, faster and more secure, whether on-chain or off-chain . Safe is therefore much more than a wallet infrastructure; it is also a transaction processor.
Don't you think that the launch of Safenet reflects a collective failure to improve the current payment system? There are already so many solutions, particularly layer 2 solutions, that could do the job. Why did you choose to launch Safenet in the end?
I'd say that the focus hasn't necessarily been on the right priorities over the last few years. The main objective was to make blockchains more scalable, in particular via layer 2 solutions on Ethereum, and we have achieved that. It is now possible to carry out transactions for a few cents, even by moving millions of dollars on a layer 2 like Optimism. But this has created new problems: fragmentation.
We have hundreds of layer 2s, with new layer 2s emerging every week. This complicates the user experience and slows down interactions, particularly when transacting between different layers or blockchains.
This is where Safenet comes in: it's time to build a decentralised payment system.
This concerns many things: the user experience, speed and security, as well as trust in on-chain transactions. The aim is to eliminate opacity, where you send funds to a smart contract and hope they appear on the other side.
On another topic, Trump was elected a month ago, which has caused rapid change in the US. Safe being one of the biggest European crypto startups, do you think Europe is still in competition with the US, especially with this new political context?
We are not targeting any specific market. Our project is global. Even though many of the contributors are based in Europe, we are not creating a product solely for the European market.
The interesting thing about Europe is that the structure of the European Union reflects certain values of the blockchain ecosystem, such as decentralisation and democracy. Switzerland is a good example, with its neutrality and resilience, which embody the core values of blockchain well.
If the US seems to be taking a more favourable stance towards the blockchain industry, that's a good thing. It brings more regulatory clarity, which is good for everyone. However, it shouldn't have a significant impact on our project, which remains global.
But aren't you worried that Europe, with regulations like MiCA, is holding back innovation, particularly for DeFi?
Europe is aware of its limitations, such as limited access to capital for startups and regulations that are sometimes too restrictive. However, there are also some very good initiatives such as regulatory sandboxes that allow things to be tested and progress at the right pace.
In Tech, the US has often been faster thanks to its openness. In crypto, it's always been the other way around, although as we've just seen with Trump, that could change quickly.
For me, regulation is beneficial if it brings clarity. The absence of clear rules forces startups to take risks, which can lead to sanctions after the event. Regulation, when well thought out, allows the industry to know what is and isn't possible, creating an environment conducive to innovation.
