Who is Peter Thiel, and what’s his crypto treasury strategy?
Peter Thiel has made significant strides in the world of crypto treasuries by investing in companies that focus on Ethereum. This strategy allows him to gain substantial indirect exposure to the cryptocurrency’s growth while remaining aligned with his overall venture capital approach.
Best known as the co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, Peter Thiel takes a more indirect route to gain crypto exposure. Rather than simply acquiring Ether (ETH) for balance sheets as Saylor does with Bitcoin (BTC), Thiel invests in companies that convert themselves into Ether treasury entities. This method provides him with exposure to the benefits of ETH, while strategically investing his resources in firms that can invigorate markets.
Through his investment funds, Thiel has supported companies such as ETHZilla and BitMine Immersion, which later became Ether-holding firms.
ETHZilla, previously known as Nasdaq-listed 180 Life Sciences, disclosed a $425-million private investment in a private equity agreement to develop an Ether treasury and secured approval to issue an additional $150 million in debt securities. Electric Capital will oversee its onchain yield initiatives.
On the other hand, BitMine has raised hundreds of millions to acquire over 1.52 million ETH valued at $6.6 billion, including 373,000 tokens added during Ethereum’s recent surge. By investing in these firms instead of acquiring Ether directly, Thiel capitalizes on both equity gains and crypto treasury involvement. This is reminiscent of the asymmetrical strategy he implemented with Facebook and Palantir.
For Thiel, favoring Ether over Bitcoin was a calculated move. By focusing on ETH treasury companies, he positions himself within an ecosystem ripe with new financial infrastructure development. He believes this grants Ether greater long-term flexibility compared to Bitcoin’s role as a store of value, making ETH treasury investments more appealing as asymmetric opportunities.
Did you know? Peter Thiel co-founded Bullish, a cryptocurrency exchange that was launched in 2021 and valued at over $7 billion at that time. It raised $1.1 billion in 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 a leading figure in corporate Bitcoin adoption, transforming an ordinary software company into the largest holder of BTC.
Michael Saylor is the executive chairman of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), a US tech firm that shifted its focus in 2020 to become the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. Since then, Saylor has embraced Bitcoin as a reserve asset and hedge against fiat inflation.
Saylor’s strategy is straightforward yet audacious: utilize equity and preferred stock offerings, along with occasional debt, to raise capital that is then converted into Bitcoin.
According to BitcoinTreasuries.net, as of August 2025, Strategy holds roughly 629,000 BTC, constituting about 64% of all public company treasury holdings. The company continues to grow its assets through thoughtfully timed purchases, even amid price fluctuations.
Guided by Saylor, Strategy adheres to a steady acquisition policy, funding it through innovative tools 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 underscore Saylor’s unwavering commitment and capacity to anchor a corporate balance sheet around Bitcoin as a structural asset, even when market conditions appear shaky.
Treasury strategic bets compared: Thiel vs. Saylor
At first glance, both Michael Saylor and Peter Thiel appear to pursue the same goal: leveraging crypto as a treasury reserve strategy for long-term value generation. However, their methods and chosen ecosystems differ significantly.
Saylor’s Bitcoin accumulation process has become almost systematic. MicroStrategy raises capital through equity dilution, convertible notes, or even perpetual preferred shares before methodically channeling it into Bitcoin.
Despite owning nearly 3% of the total supply, the company’s approach does not disturb markets. Executives note that their reliance on over-the-counter desks minimizes slippage and prevents price shocks. The result is a treasury model that feels predictable, transparent, and built for decades of consistent accumulation.
In contrast, Thiel’s Ethereum strategy is built on an entirely different premise. He perceives ETH as programmable capital—functioning as a fuel for applications, smart contracts, and tokenized markets.
His approach involves identifying underpriced or underutilized firms, providing financial backing, and urging them to evolve into Ether treasury models.
Rather than relying solely on ETH’s scarcity, Thiel links his exposure to Ethereum’s integration in broader institutional adoption, where tokenized finance and decentralized finance (DeFi) infrastructures may attract new capital flows.
A notable distinction lies in liquidity. Saylor’s BTC is securely held within Strategy’s balance sheet, inaccessible except through future asset sales. Thiel, conversely, can adjust his positions by varying equity stakes in ETH treasury entities.
This adaptability renders his exposure more dynamic yet riskier: company valuations are not solely dependent on ETH prices but also influenced by corporate governance and performance.
In practice, both strategies create ripple effects. Saylor’s relentless accumulation has normalized the concept of corporations maintaining Bitcoin as a primary treasury reserve. Thiel’s shifts toward Ethereum are establishing a similar standard in the ETH domain, demonstrating that public companies can fundamentally restructure around crypto assets.
While Saylor exemplifies scale and conviction, Thiel showcases agility and innovation.
Who is making smarter crypto treasury bets?
When assessing the treasury strategies of Peter Thiel and Michael Saylor, the differences are as much about philosophy and execution as they are about the numbers.
Both Thiel and Saylor have significant stakes in the crypto market, but their exposure mechanisms differ fundamentally, resulting in varying risk-reward dynamics.
Peter Thiel’s strategy in focus
Thiel’s “strategic agility” permits him to harness asymmetric upside without directly holding ETH:
- Capital deployment flexibility: Thiel can swiftly allocate substantial capital into promising companies post-pivot, benefiting from coordinated token accumulation and stock price adjustments.
- VC background: Thiel’s venture capital experience enables him to identify firms with optionality, scalable upside, and the potential for compounded gains as ETH integrates deeper into financial systems.
- Indirect exposure benefits: Risks include dependence on management performance, reduced liquidity in some targets, and limited direct control over token reserves. However, the upside is bypassing direct custody or regulatory scrutiny regarding ETH.
Michael Saylor’s strategy in focus
Saylor’s advantage lies in methodical processes and consistent execution rather than market timing or speculative maneuvers:
- Cost-averaging: Regular purchasing mitigates price volatility, creating a long-term accumulation advantage.
- Layered financing: Employing equity, preferred shares, and convertible debt to sustainably finance new acquisitions, even amid fluctuations in the company’s market-to-net-asset-value premium (mNAV).
- Scale and transparency: The model is highly visible to investors, regulators, and the market, signaling confidence and commitment to BTC as a treasury reserve.
Whose crypto treasury bets are smarter?
Saylor’s strength lies in building reserves during market dips and utilizing transparent capital frameworks. It represents a strategy focused on long-term accumulation and balance-sheet resilience.
Thiel’s advantage stems from strategic agility: smaller firms with higher potential returns and indirect exposure that may outperform if ETH demand and reserves surge.
For scalable, transparent, long-term treasury developments, Saylor’s model is more robust. For higher-beta, venture-style opportunities that leverage macro trends in Ether, Thiel’s strategy might deliver significant returns.
Ultimately, the contrast is clear: one approach is about constructing an unassailable fortress of reserves, while the other focuses on navigating waves of institutional realignment.
