Turnover Is Unsigned: INTCB and IBMB Are 1.38x Apart on Turnover and 64 Points Apart on 30 Days

TL;DR

The clearest thing in this group is a fact about the metric: turnover has no sign.

• INTCB turns over at 1.751x, the highest among the ten largest instruments on the book (2nd is SNDKB at 1.270x), while its 30-day figure is −47.60%, it sits −54.4% below its since-listing high, and it is pinned at 2.0% of its range.
• IBMB, in the same group, turns over at 1.265x, only 1.38x less than INTCB, and its 30-day figure is +16.51% — 5th-best on the book and 2nd-best common stock, behind only LLYB at +21.31% — with an in-range position of 86.1%, the 3rd-highest on the book, and only −3.5% from its high.
• Two instruments in the same turnover band, 64.11 percentage points apart over 30 days. So a high turnover number is neither attention nor exit: it carries no sign.
• A second computable finding: one underlying, Intel, accounts for 14.1% of the book's volume. INTCB's $67.90M is the 3rd-largest volume on the book and INTWB's $55.54M is the 4th; together they are $123.43M, while their combined market cap of $40.22M is only 3.05% of the book.
• The cleanest counter-example is AMDB. Same listing day (2026-06-21), identical 132-day window, also a common stock, same industry — width 1.565x against INTCB's 2.245x, so INTCB is 43.5% wider, 30 days −18.88% against −47.60%, turnover 0.431x against 1.751x. Those numbers belong to Intel itself, not to legacy tech and not to semiconductors.
• Group turnover of 1.6271x is 2.59x the other 95 instruments (0.6277x), but that is an INTCB figure — INTCB alone is 84.5% of group market cap and 90.9% of group volume. Strip it and 0.9529x remains, still above the other 95 but at 1.52x rather than 2.59x.
• This snapshot cannot compute a premium. There is no underlying reference price and no dividend reinvestment multiplier, so this report gives no premium or discount figure.

1. What these five are

bStocks is Binance's own tokenized-equity issuer (issuing entity BTech Holdings Limited, ADGM / FSRA listed certificates, single chain BNB Chain, Binance-only trading). CoinMarketCap reports 105 instruments; this report uses a snapshot of 100 of them, timestamped 2026-10-31T06:06:52Z.

The underlyings are the previous generation of technology leaders, each publicly telling a turnaround story: x86 manufacturing coming back, mainframes to hybrid cloud, Nokia from handsets to telecom equipment, Qualcomm from phone silicon to automotive and PCs, BlackBerry from phones to in-vehicle software.

The five together hold $45.91M of market cap, 3.5% of the book's $1,318.38M, and $74.69M of volume, 8.6% of the book's $873.46M. The volume share is 2.5x the market-cap share — a multiple that comes almost entirely from the first row.

One basis note up front: BBB has been listed only 19 days, so its +0.02% 30-day figure covers its entire history, not 30 days. It cannot enter any 30-day comparison; section 4 gives it a window-matched control instead.

2. Turnover has no direction

The group laid out by outcome:

The first and fourth rows are this entire report.

INTCB's turnover of 1.751x is the highest among the ten largest instruments by market cap. That is worth stating precisely, because high turnover on this snapshot is usually a small-denominator artifact (turnover = 24h volume ÷ market cap, so a small denominator mechanically inflates the ratio). INTCB is not that: its $38.78M market cap ranks 9th on the book, and the turnover figures of the top ten are SPCXB 0.458x, CRCLB 0.326x, GOOGLB 0.291x, MSTRB 0.443x, QQQB 0.327x, SNDKB 1.270x, MUB 0.415x, NVDAB 0.889x, INTCB 1.751x, BNCB 0.432x. A top-ten instrument turning over 1.75 times its own market cap in a day.

And the outcome at that turnover level is near the bottom of the book: 30 days −47.60% ranks 94th of 100. The six worse are KORUB −49.66%, MVLLB −51.66%, SOXLB −51.90%, SHAZB −58.17%, SNXXB −61.18% and INTWB −78.03% — five of which are leveraged products. In other words, among unlevered instruments only SHAZB has fallen further than INTCB.

IBMB, in the same group, turns over at 1.265x, only 1.38x less than INTCB. The two are in the same turnover band. IBMB's outcome:

• 30 days +16.51%, 5th on the book. The four above it are SOXSB +70.82%, SQQQB +24.94%, LLYB +21.31% and UVXYB +20.12% — two inverse ETFs, a pharmaceutical stock and a volatility ETF. So IBMB is the 2nd-best 30-day common stock on the book, behind only LLYB.
• An in-range position of 86.1%, the 3rd-highest on the book (behind LLYB 92.5% and WENB 87.7%), while only 18 instruments on the book sit above the midpoint of their own range at all.
• Only −3.5% from its since-listing high.

The two are 1.38x apart on turnover and 64.11 percentage points apart over 30 days. That is this report's thesis: turnover is an unsigned quantity. It states how much changed hands in a day; it does not state whether that money was building a position or leaving one. For direction you have to look at where the price landed — INTCB at 2.0% of its range, IBMB at 86.1%.

3. One underlying, Intel, is 14.1% of the book's volume

The report on single-stock 2x leveraged tokens already published one comparison: INTCB's 24h volume of $67.90M exceeds its 2x counterpart INTWB's $55.54M, while INTWB's turnover is 38.46x. That report's point was the denominator — high turnover is first of all a small-market-cap result.

Here the same figures advance one step: add the two tokens together.

The 3rd- and 4th-largest volumes on the book are two tokens on the same underlying. Together they are $123.43M, 14.1% of the book's $873.46M, while their combined market cap of $40.22M is only 3.05% of the book's $1,318.38M.

So on this snapshot one underlying, Intel, carried a seventh of this book's trading on a thirty-third of its market cap. The only individual instruments ahead of the pair are SNDKB at $97.80M and SPCXB at $79.66M.

That INTWB row carries the worst 30-day figure on the book at −78.03%, with 7 days −53.79% and 24 hours −22.62%. The two tokens together turn over at 3.069x — on a name that has lost roughly half (spot) and nearly four-fifths (2x) over 30 days.

4. The counter-example: AMD, listed the same day, is 43.5% narrower

Every prior report in this series ran the same machine: compare instruments listed on the same day, so the window is identical. All five members of this group have same-day peers, so the machine runs at full coverage here.

The cleanest pair is in the 2026-06-21 batch.

AMDB is INTCB's most direct control: same listing day, same 132 days, also a common stock, same industry, and Intel's direct competitor in x86. The result — width 1.565x against 2.245x, with INTCB 43.5% wider; 30 days −18.88% against −47.60%, 28.7 percentage points apart; turnover 0.431x against 1.751x, 4.1x apart.

So the three figures in section 2 belong to Intel itself, not to legacy tech in transition and not to semiconductors. Another company in the same industry, over the same window, listed the same day, is ordinary on all three dimensions.

The same batch also holds a counter-example in the other direction: MSTRB's 2.162x is only 3.8% narrower than INTCB's. A bitcoin-treasury stock and a legacy chipmaker land at nearly the same range width over an identical 132-day window. So the claim that legacy tech turnarounds are unusually volatile has no signature — it fails against AMD in the same industry, and it collides with an instrument of a completely different type.

The other three members are no more informative about the label from their batch positions:

Item by item:

• IBMB and NOKB listed on the same day and rank 9th and 6th in the same batch of ten. IBMB's 1.332x is genuinely narrow (5th-narrowest among the 46 instruments listed 100 days or more), but it is not the narrowest in its batch — TSMB's 1.322x is 0.7% narrower, and a TSMC ADR is in no sense legacy tech in transition. The label predicts neither wide nor narrow here.
• QCOMB ranks 8th in its batch of ten, at the narrow end, narrower than WDCB 2.005x, NBISB 1.996x and GLWB 1.770x. And GLWB is Corning — founded in 1851, which qualifies for this group under the same standard, and is not in it. That is a real limitation of this grouping; section 8 states it again.
• BBB's batch holds only 3 instruments and it has only 19 days — its narrowness is mechanical and carries no information. Short windows cannot reach extremes (this series has seen BRKBB at 1.031x on 12 days of listing). But its batch does hold one window-matched control worth recording: PENGB is −33.10% over the same 19 days, while BBB is +0.02%. Both figures sit in a field named 30d while both instruments have existed for only 19 days — so that is a valid same-window comparison, but it is not a 30-day comparison.

5. Putting this group back in the book

The group's 1.6271x is 2.59x the other 95 instruments. But that is an INTCB figure — INTCB alone is 84.5% of group market cap and 90.9% of group volume.

Strip it and the remaining four are at 0.9529x, still above the other 95 at 0.6277x, by 1.52x. This differs from the infrastructure group: there, removing the outlier reverses the conclusion; here it does not. These five really do turn over faster than the book; the 2.59x multiple is one instrument's doing.

By listing month, the group is not riding a batch effect:

The book-wide pattern is that newer batches turn over faster (October 1.143x highest, June 0.619x lowest). Four of this group's members come from June and July, the two slowest batches — INTCB's 1.751x is 2.83x its own month's 0.619x, and IBMB's 1.265x is 1.87x July's 0.676x. So their high turnover does not come from their listing date.

On size: only 7 instruments on the book are above $50M and 12 above $25M, while 61 are below $5M and 33 below $1M, with a median of $2.39M. Only INTCB is above $25M here; the other four are at or below the median — and IBMB's $979.6K puts it among the 33 instruments below $1M. A top-ten market cap and a tail market cap inside one five-instrument group.

6. Structure: five instruments, one wrapper

• The wrapper is a tracker certificate, not equity. Issuing entity BTech Holdings Limited, ADGM / FSRA listed certificates.
• No voting rights.
• Dividends pass through: a 30% US withholding deduction first, then reinvestment through a multiplier (see section 8).
• Reserves are attested, not proven on chain. For comparison, xStocks uses Chainlink proof of reserve — updated daily or when reserves move more than 10%, verifiable on chain. An attestation is not.
• Redemption requires KYC, with a $5 minimum.
• US persons are blocked.
• Single chain. BNB Chain only, BSC deposits only; sending on the wrong network loses the assets.

That is a structural description, not an accusation. It carries one specific implication for this group: dividends. Several of these underlyings are long-standing payers (IBM, Qualcomm and Nokia all have long dividend histories), and a 30% US withholding deduction followed by reinvestment through an undisclosed multiplier means a token holder receives no cash dividend and cannot see the price at which their share was reinvested. For a position held mainly for dividend return that is not a detail — it is also the root cause of the no-premium limitation in section 8.

7. This snapshot was taken on a Saturday

The timestamp 2026-10-31T06:06:52Z is a Saturday morning UTC. The US cash market closed Friday at 20:00 UTC and does not reopen until Monday. Four of this group are US-listed common stocks and the fifth is an ADR, which also trades in the US session — so at the instant of this snapshot not one of the five reference prices exists.

This has already been quantified once on the same issuer: one stock, four books laid AAPL's four tokenized versions side by side on a Saturday and concluded that a quote outside trading hours is a market maker's opinion, not a market price.

The 24-hour change window used here (Friday 06:06 UTC to Saturday 06:06 UTC) contains a full Friday US session, so it is not purely a closed-market quote; but the snapshot itself lands inside the closure, and for the two-plus days until Monday these token prices are the only prices these names have.

One extra layer on section 3's figures: the $123.43M traded across INTCB and INTWB happened in a window where an underlying reference price existed and then stopped existing. This report cannot split that volume into a session half and a closed half — the snapshot holds only a 24-hour aggregate, with no tick data.

8. What this method cannot compute

First, no premium or discount. The snapshot holds only the token's own price and no underlying reference price. More importantly, the bStocks dividend mechanism is a 30% US withholding deduction followed by reinvestment through a multiplier — without knowing the current multiplier, token unit price and share price are not comparable quantities. That matters especially here, because several of these underlyings are long-standing dividend payers. So this report gives no premium figure; it is not computable, not forgotten.

Second, no shares per token. The snapshot holds no conversion ratio. IBMB's unit price of $256.15 cannot be set against any share price directly.

Third, BBB has been listed only 19 days, so its 30-day field covers its entire history. Its +0.02% cannot sit alongside the other four 30-day figures, and its 1.244x width is a short-window artifact. This report uses it only once, in section 4, against PENGB from the same listing day, and states there that the field name and the actual window disagree.

Fourth, the range-width windows are unequal. This group runs 19 / 110 / 110 / 117 / 132 days. Book-wide width comparisons are restricted to the 46 instruments listed 100 days or more — four of this group are in that 46 (INTCB 35th, QCOMB 9th, NOKB 17th, IBMB 5th) and BBB is not. Even within those 46 the windows differ by more than a month.

Fifth, market cap is the CMC definition: price × circulating supply. The book total of $1,318.38M here is the sum of these 100 rows, while this site's /stocks page shows bStocks at $914M of on-chain value — two figures from different sources at different moments, and they will not reconcile. This report uses the former throughout and states the timestamp everywhere.

Sixth, 100 of 105. CMC reports 105 instruments; the snapshot in hand holds 100. The missing 5 are in no statistic here.

Seventh, legacy tech in transition is a layer this report drew itself. The snapshot has no such field, and section 4 already supplies the disproof: Corning (GLWB, founded 1851) qualifies under the same standard and is wider than QCOMB, while a TSMC ADR (TSMB) does not qualify and is narrower than IBMB. Drawn by someone else, the numbers in sections 2 and 4 would change.

Eighth, that 14.1% in section 3 is a single-day snapshot. It is the aggregate of the 24 hours before 2026-10-31T06:06:52Z, not an average over any period. Intel carried a seventh of this book's volume on that day; this report cannot say whether that is normal or particular to the day, because the snapshot holds no historical series.

Conclusion. The most defensible finding here is about the metric itself: turnover has no direction. INTCB's 1.751x is the highest among the ten largest instruments on the book, and it sits at 2.0% of its range with a 30-day figure of −47.60%; IBMB, in the same group, turns over only 1.38x less and sits at 86.1% of its range with +16.51%, the 2nd-best 30-day common stock on the book. The two are 64.11 percentage points apart. A high turnover figure, by itself, does not tell you whether money is arriving or leaving — for direction, look at where the price sits in its range.

The second computable point: one underlying, Intel, accounts for 14.1% of this book's volume on 3.05% of its market cap. The 3rd- and 4th-largest volumes on the book are the spot and 2x tokens of the same name.

And the claim that legacy tech turnarounds are unusually volatile is rejected directly by AMD, listed the same day: over the same 132-day window, in the same industry, also a common stock, AMDB is 43.5% narrower than INTCB, 28.7 percentage points better over 30 days, and turns over 4.1x less. Those three extreme figures belong to Intel itself.

Data from CoinMarketCap, timestamped 2026-10-31T06:06:52Z, covering 100 of the 105 instruments bStocks has reported. Instrument detail and quotes at /stocks/bstocks. This is research, not investment advice. DYOR.