Who is Peter Thiel, and what’s his crypto treasury strategy?
Peter Thiel has quietly created a considerable presence in crypto treasuries by supporting companies that invest in Ethereum. This strategy allows him significant indirect exposure to the cryptocurrency’s growth while staying aligned with his broader venture capital approach. Thiel, well-known as the co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, navigates crypto exposure through an indirect route. Instead of merely purchasing Ether (ETH) on balance sheets like Saylor does with Bitcoin (BTC), Thiel opts to take significant stakes in companies that evolve into Ether-treasury vehicles. This approach provides him with exposure to ETH’s upside while embedding his capital in firms capable of driving market momentum.
Through his funds, Thiel has supported companies like ETHZilla and BitMine Immersion, both of which subsequently became Ether-holding entities. ETHZilla, previously Nasdaq-listed 180 Life Sciences, announced a $425-million private equity investment deal to establish an Ether treasury and received approval to issue an additional $150 million in debt securities. Electric Capital will oversee its on-chain yield programs. Meanwhile, BitMine has secured hundreds of millions to acquire over 1.52 million ETH, valued at $6.6 billion, including 373,000 tokens gained during Ether’s latest upswing. By investing in these companies rather than directly buying Ether, Thiel manages to capture both equity upside and crypto-treasury exposure—a strategy reminiscent of his previous ventures with Facebook and Palantir.
For Thiel, his initial choice of Ether over Bitcoin was a strategic decision. By focusing on ETH-treasury companies, he positions himself within an ecosystem actively developing new financial infrastructure. He believes this gives Ether greater long-term optionality compared to Bitcoin’s store-of-value model, making ETH-treasury investments more appealing as asymmetric opportunities.
Did you know? Peter Thiel co-founded Bullish, a cryptocurrency exchange that debuted in 2021 and was valued at over $7 billion at that time. It raised $1.1 billion during its initial public offering and aims to convert much of that into stablecoins, indicating a shift in institutional treasury strategies toward crypto-native liquidity systems.
Who is Michael Saylor, and what’s his crypto treasury strategy?
Michael Saylor has emerged as the prominent figure in corporate Bitcoin adoption, transforming an ordinary software company into the largest BTC treasury vehicle in the world. Michael Saylor serves as the executive chairman of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), a U.S. tech firm that shifted its focus in 2020 to become the top corporate Bitcoin holder. Since then, Saylor has adopted Bitcoin as a reserve asset and a safeguard against fiat inflation.
Saylor’s strategy is straightforward yet daring: it involves utilizing equity and preferred stock offerings along with occasional debt to raise capital, which is then converted into Bitcoin. According to BitcoinTreasuries.net, as of August 2025, Strategy holds approximately 629,000 BTC, representing nearly 64% of all public-company treasury holdings. The company continues to grow its holdings through strategically timed purchases, even amidst price fluctuations.
Under Saylor’s guidance, Strategy follows a consistent accumulation policy financed through innovative mechanisms such as at-the-market equity sales, perpetual preferred stock, and convertible debt. To mark five years of Bitcoin adoption, the company acquired over 585 BTC for $69 million in August 2025 alone. These actions reflect Saylor’s unwavering commitment and ability to structure a company’s balance sheet around Bitcoin as a core asset, even when market conditions are uncertain.
Contrasting Strategies of Thiel and Saylor
At first glance, both Michael Saylor and Peter Thiel are pursuing a similar goal: using crypto as a treasury reserve strategy to create long-term value. However, their methods and the ecosystems they have chosen are strikingly different. Saylor’s Bitcoin acquisition has become almost automated. MicroStrategy raises capital via equity dilution, convertible notes, or even perpetual preferred shares, which are then systematically directed into Bitcoin.
More Read
Despite holding nearly 3% of the total supply, the company’s approach does not disrupt markets. Executives claim that reliance on over-the-counter desks minimizes slippage and prevents price shocks. The result is a treasury model that appears predictable, transparent, and designed for years of steady accumulation.
On the other hand, Thiel’s Ether investment is built on a distinct foundation. He perceives ETH as programmable capital—a type of fuel for applications, smart contracts, and tokenized markets. His strategy focuses on identifying underpriced or underutilized companies, financially supporting them, and encouraging them to shift into Ether treasury models. Rather than merely betting on ETH’s scarcity, Thiel ties his exposure to Ether’s role in broader institutional adoption, where tokenized finance and decentralized finance (DeFi) infrastructure might capture new capital streams.
One notable aspect is liquidity. Saylor’s BTC is secured within Strategy’s balance sheet, immovable except through future asset sales. In contrast, Thiel has the flexibility to exit or increase his positions by adjusting his equity stakes in ETH-treasury firms. This dynamic exposure may be riskier but also offers greater agility, as company valuations are not solely dependent on ETH prices but on corporate governance and execution.
Both strategies create ripple effects. Saylor’s relentless acquisition has normalized the concept of corporations holding Bitcoin as a primary treasury reserve. Thiel’s shifts toward Ether are setting a similar example within the ETH space, demonstrating that public firms can completely restructuring around crypto assets. Where Saylor exemplifies scale and resolve, Thiel showcases adaptability and innovation.
Comparing the Treasury Strategies
When comparing the treasury strategies of Peter Thiel and Michael Saylor, the difference is as much about philosophy and execution as it is about mere numbers. Both have substantial positions in the crypto market, but they achieve their exposure in fundamentally different manners, resulting in distinct risk-reward profiles.
- Thiel’s “strategic agility” enables him to seize asymmetric upside without directly holding ETH:
- Capital deployment flexibility: Thiel can rapidly allocate significant capital into firms exhibiting potential post-pivot, benefitting from synchronized token accumulation and stock price reassessment.
- VC background: Thiel’s venture capital experience primes him to seek out companies with optionality, scalable prospects, and the potential for compounded gains if ETH becomes more integrated into financial systems.
- Indirect exposure benefits: Risks include reliance on management performance, thinner liquidity in certain targets, and lack of direct control over token reserves. However, the advantage lies in avoiding direct custody or regulatory risks associated with ETH itself.
- Saylor’s approach derives its advantage from consistency and process, rather than market timing or speculative strategies:
- Layered financing: Saylor employs equity, preferred shares, and convertible debt to sustainably finance new purchases, even as the company’s market-to-net-asset-value premium (mNAV) falters.
- Scale and transparency: This treasury model is highly visible to investors, regulators, and the market, signifying confidence and commitment to BTC as a reserve asset.
Saylor’s strength lies in amassing reserves during market downturns and his transparent capital frameworks. His approach aims for long-term accumulation and balance sheet solidity. Conversely, Thiel’s advantage rests in strategic agility: smaller firms, a higher potential return on investment, and indirect exposure that may outperform if ETH demand and reserves escalate.
For a scalable, transparent, long-term treasury structure, Saylor’s model is more robust. In contrast, for higher-beta, venture-style gains capitalizing on macro momentum in Ether, Thiel’s approach may deliver outsized returns. Ultimately, the distinction is clear: one strategy focuses on constructing an unassailable fortress of reserves, while the other seeks to surf the waves of institutional realignment.
