Peter Thiel, who backs Bullish, once gave Mark Zuckerberg $500,000 and later it into $400 million jackpot
Peter Thiel
, made s stunning debut on the stock market as its initial public offering (IPO) was priced above its indicated range at $37 per share. The offering raised $1.11 billion for
Bullish
based on 30 million shares sold and valued the company at $5.41 billion. Bullish was earlier aiming to price its offering between $32 and $33 per share. JPMorgan, Jefferies, and Citigroup are the lead underwriters for the IPO.
The Bullish group, led by former New York Stock Exchange president Tom Farley, consists of technology and investment businesses, focused on developing financial services for the digital assets sector. With its listing, Bullish joins a burgeoning list of crypto players that have tapped public markets this year, buoyed mainly by crypto-friendly regulations under the Trump administration.
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Artificial Intelligence
AI For Business Professionals Batch 2
By Ansh Mehra
View Program
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Artificial Intelligence
AI For Business Professionals
By Vaibhav Sisinity
View Program
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
ALSO READ:
Americans might see big schedule changes soon as gridlock continues over SEPTA funding. How will it impact you?
What is Bullish?
Founded in 2021, Bullish is a cryptocurrency exchange that focuses on spot and derivatives trading. Its CEO is Thomas Farley, who was previously the president of the NYSE Group, which operates the New York Stock Exchange. Bullish also received an early investment from VC heavyweight Peter Thiel.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years
IC Markets
Learn More
Undo
Bullish, for its most recent quarter, said it had $647 billion in total spot volume, according to its Form F-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Additionally, Bullish says it had $111 billion in total perpetual futures volume for the quarter.
Bullish reported that its average daily trading volume is roughly $2.6 billion, with Q1 2025 trading activity surging 78% compared to the same period last year.
Live Events
ALSO READ:
Trump crypto company World Liberty Financial's 'giant leap': A massive game-changing digital coin deal
But Bullish isn't just in the exchange business. In 2023, it acquired crypto news platform
CoinDesk
from Digital Currency Group. According to Bullish, CoinDesk now attracts 48 million unique visitors each year and handles over 600 million monthly API requests for its CoinDesk Data services.
Bullish offers cryptocurrency spot trading, margin trading, and derivatives trading, with a focus on institutional investors.
Who is Peter Thiel and what is his net worth?
Bullish is backed by billionaire investor Peter Thiel, German-American entrepreneur, a hedge fund manager and former CEO of PayPal. After earning degrees in philosophy and law from Stanford University, Thiel briefly worked in law and finance before launching the hedge fund Thiel Capital and later co-founding Confinity in 1998.
Confinity merged with Elon Musk's X.com to become PayPal, which was sold to eBay in 2002 for $1.5 billion. Thiel walked away with $60 million and used that windfall to build what became one of Silicon Valley's most powerful investment networks.
ALSO READ:
Man suffers rare bromism following ChatGPT diet tips. All about dangerous condition and its symptoms
The entrepreneur has a net worth of $23 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth. He made another major fortune several years later when he became the first outside investor in a company that was then called TheFaceBook.com.
In 2004, Thiel gave Mark Zuckerberg $500,000 in exchange for a 10.2% stake in the nascent social network company. Peter offloaded most of his shares during the company's IPO, turning a $500,000 investment into $1 billion. Just months after the tech company's IPO, he sold millions of shares for $20 each for a sum of $400 million.
ALSO READ:
Millions of US citizens to receive $1,390 stimulus soon? Check if you qualify and when to expect it
However, if he had held onto his full 10% stake, that position would be worth around $180 billion today. Despite cashing out the bulk of his holdings, Peter remained on the company's Board of Directors until 2022.
Peter is also the founder of a venture capital firm called Founders Fund, which invested in companies like SpaceX, Airbnb, and Palantir Technologies, a data analytics company he co-founded and led for years. Palantir went public in 2020 and is a key contractor for the U.S. government and military.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
The tariff puzzle
Trump gets Exxon back in Russian oil sector. Will he still insist on penal duties for India? The Trump-Putin summit in Alaska has raised more questions than answers for India. New Delhi was hoping that a modus vivendi between Washington and Moscow on the Ukraine war would stave off Trump's threatened secondary sanctions. It was a logical assumption: If Trump and Putin can do business, why can't India also have a commercial relationship with Russia? But what transpired in Alaska was somewhat strange. While Trump and Putin appeared to agree on a peace deal to end the war – though details are yet to be worked out – there is no word on the secondary sanctions. Even more worryingly for New Delhi, Washington has postponed a scheduled meeting of trade officials on Aug 25 that was supposed to clear the air on the secondary tariffs. Those come into effect on Aug 27, doubling tariffs on Indian exports to US to 50%. Interestingly, on the same day Putin met Trump, he signed a new decree that could allow American oil major Exxon Mobil to regain shares in the lucrative Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project. Exxon, before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, held 30% operator share in the project. If Exxon actually returns to Russia, Trump's secondary sanctions on India for buying Russian oil have no leg to stand on. That said, on the bilateral trade deal, India has done well to stick to its guns. Also, before Trump decided to torpedo a deal, New Delhi had been as flexible as possible. But it simply cannot compromise on the farm sector. In fact, no country can afford to play with the livelihood of its farmers. Take Japan. Although Trump forced Tokyo to increase imports of American rice by 75%, it has become a hot-button political issue in Japan with many Japanese buyers vowing to reject the imports. Similarly, for India's large agricultural sector that employs around 46% of the workforce, opening up to duty-free US agri-imports is impossible. However, in non-agricultural sectors there is ample room for negotiations. US also needs to keep in mind the larger geopolitical play here. India can be a viable option in the China+1 strategy. But Washington has to cut New Delhi some slack. If it continues pressuring India through tariffs and sanctions, New Delhi will have no choice but to increase its alignment with Brics or even revive the Russia-India-China platform. Note that Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi is beginning a visit to New Delhi today. Trump, therefore, should think hard before trying to drag India over the tariff coals. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Gonna take 10 years to build one wall': US man calls Americans lazy as workers use machines to lift bricks
A video shared by a US-based TikTok user has sparked online debate over construction practices in America. The clip, originally posted by the user @mickystickey, shows his commentary layered over footage of workers building a wall. A TikTok video showing US workers using machines to lift bricks sparked debate.(TikTok/@mickystickey) (Also read: TikToker sobs on camera, blames ChatGPT for missing flight to Puerto Rico) In the footage, a worker dressed in a neon yellow safety vest and helmet is seen laying blocks with the help of a suspended suction device. The camera later pans to another worker also relying on the machine to lift and position the bricks into place. Commentary claims Americans are becoming 'lazy' The TikTok user provided his own commentary on the clip. He can be heard saying, "Hey y'all, look how lazy we are in America. Now they got all the illegals out, you got regular Americans doing construction work. And we're so damn lazy we can't even pick up the bricks ourselves. They really got these suction machines to move the bricks around. It's gonna take them 10 years just to build one wall. And look, all the employees are using these machines." He captioned the video, "We are lazy in America." Reddit reactions fuel wider discussion The video was later reshared on Reddit under the caption: 'When they finish building the damn wall, China will have built an entire city.' The repost has since attracted more than 3,500 comments, reflecting a range of views from users. One commenter remarked, "This isn't laziness, it's efficiency. Machines exist to reduce injury and improve output." Another argued, "The guy calling it lazy clearly hasn't lifted bricks for eight hours straight. This tech is about protecting workers' health." Some, however, agreed with the TikTok creator, with one saying, "America is definitely becoming softer. Hard labour builds character, and relying on machines for every little thing shows how far we've slipped." Another person added, "It's going to take forever to finish projects this way, the machines seem slower than just doing it by hand." Others defended the practice, with one user writing, "I've worked in construction for years. These devices actually speed up the process and prevent long-term back injuries. It's not laziness, it's progress." A different commenter noted, "This is exactly what technology is for. We don't call farmers lazy for using tractors."
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Shutting out international students could close many US colleges, and cost Americans the most
Source: Joe Giddens/PA via AP, File The land of opportunity is not only renowned for its tech culture and ivory towers; at its heart lie the universities. The 'American Dream,' a utopia so often defined by international students, is now collapsing under its own weight. Once, cafés brimmed with students poring over laptops, landlords thrived on semesterly rents, and even local hospitals relied on interns from university medical schools. But what happens when the presence of international students grows thinner? Empty apartments. Shuttered shops. Jobs lost. Futures foreclosed. This is not fiction—it is the trajectory America faces if international students are pushed out of its classrooms. And the picture is not merely imagined; the data bears it out. Is the land of opportunity now standing at the precipice of failing to provide opportunity to its own? A demographic cliff is looming The United States is slowly inching towards its demographic cliff. The post-2007 decline in birth rates has begun to erode the domestic pipeline of college-ready students, a trend set to accelerate after 2025. According to the National Foundation for American Policy report, without immigrants and international students, America's undergraduate population could contract by almost five million within the next decade and a half. Graduate enrollments could shrink by 1.1 million. Such losses are not mere statistics; they are the difference between thriving campuses and entire regions left hollow. Not the Ivies, but the heartland It is not just Yale and Stanford, the backbones of US higher education, that are narrowing the gates for international students. It is also the smaller regional universities and liberal arts colleges, especially in rural areas, that stand on the edge of collapse. These are the schools that educate first-generation Americans, employ local residents, and serve as economic anchors for struggling towns. Their collapse would send shockwaves that transcend beyond academia, dismantling the fragile ecosystems established around them. An already fraying fabric The cracks on the surface are visible. In 2023, public colleges face their steepest drop in tuition revenue since 1980. Institutions like West Virginia University are compelled into austerity, gutting entire departments and eliminating faculty jobs. Without international students, many more schools will face the same grim choices, reducing access, raising costs, or shutting down entirely. The hidden subsidy of international students International students pay more than tuition; they subsidise opportunity. By enrolling in large numbers and often paying full fees, they make it possible for universities to keep costs manageable for domestic peers. Their absence would not open doors for US students; it would make those doors unaffordable to enter. Beyond dollars, they fuel industries starved for talent, particularly in STEM and healthcare, where America cannot meet demand with its domestic supply alone. Towns without universities, economies without engines The closing of a university is not just an educational loss; it is an economic implosion. Every college campus sustains hundreds of businesses, from housing and hospitality to healthcare and transportation. Eliminate thousands of international students, and the ripple effects cascade outwards: Fewer customers, fewer jobs, fewer tax revenues. For numerous towns, the university is not an institution; it is an economic engine. Strip it away, and what remains is decline. The self-inflicted wound of restrictive policy Against this backdrop, policy decisions loom large. The Trump administration's aggressive stance, tightening visas, threatening deportations, dismantling post-graduate work opportunities like OPT and STEM OPT, signals not protectionism but self-sabotage. Stripping pathways for international students to study and stay does not defend American workers; it undermines them by choking off talent, innovation, and investment. A choice that shapes the future The question is not abstract; it is immediate and pressing. Does the United States aspire to remain the world's magnet for talent, or will it deplete that ground to nations eager to welcome the very students it repels? Policymakers must comprehend that excluding international students is not a defensive maneuver; it is an economic surrender. If America closes its doors, it will not merely lose students. It will lose jobs, industries, and communities built on the promise of education as a public good. The stakes, quite literally, are very high. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
