Width converges to 1.9x, turnover spreads 20-fold: five optics and interconnect tokens

TL;DR

Hold the underlying industry fixed and range width converges. Turnover does not converge at all — the two numbers are not measuring the same thing.

• Four of the five cluster between 1.888x and 1.975x in range width: MRVLB 1.888x, LITEB 1.947x, COHRB 1.952x, CRDOB 1.975x. The widest and the narrowest are 4.6% apart, across listing windows of 110 / 121 / 88 / 88 days and market caps 12.9 times apart.
• The cleanest pair is COHRB and CRDOB: listed the same day (2026-08-04), identical 88-day window. Width 1.952x against 1.975x, −46.3% from high against −47.1%, 5.1% of the way up the range against 4.6% — the price has done almost exactly the same thing. Turnover is 0.141x against 2.916x, a 20.7-fold gap.
• COHRB has the second-lowest turnover of all 100 instruments (AMATB is lowest at 0.1297x); CRDOB has the seventh-highest. The two instruments whose prices match most closely sit at opposite ends of that distribution.
• The counter-example is inside the group. AAOIB is 2.453x, listed the same day as MRVLB with the identical 110-day window, and 30% wider. The convergence is not a law.
• Nor is 1.95x a special number. In the ten instruments listed on 2026-08-04, the two widest are a rare-earth miner, USARB at 2.313x, and a datacenter operator, IRENB at 2.133x — both wider than either optics name. The median width of the 28 common stocks listed 100 days or more is 1.768x.
• This group is colder than the book: 2.2% of market cap but only 1.7% of volume, turning over at 0.5183x against 0.6657x for the other 95.
• This snapshot cannot produce a premium. It carries no underlying reference price and no dividend-reinvestment multiplier, so this piece publishes no premium or discount figure at all — not an omission, an impossibility.

1. What these five are

bStocks is Binance's in-house tokenized-equity issuer (BTech Holdings Limited, ADGM / FSRA listed certificates, BNB Chain only, traded on Binance only). CoinMarketCap reports 105 instruments; the snapshot behind this piece holds 100 of them, timestamped 2026-10-31T06:06:52Z.

All five underlyings sit on the same layer of the compute buildout: optical transceivers, optical components, high-speed interconnect silicon. They do not sell accelerators. They sell what connects accelerators together.

Together they hold $28.46M of the book's $1,318.38M — 2.2% — and $14.75M of its $873.46M of volume, 1.7%. Their volume share is below their market-cap share, which makes this a colder group than the book: turnover 0.5183x against 0.6657x for the other 95.

All five are the same type — plain common stock, no ETF, no ADR, no leverage. That is the premise of this piece. The two earlier articles attributed differences in width to how loose the pricing anchor is and to the volatility of the underlying itself. This group holds the wrapper, the industry, the issuer and the chain constant, so the only things left varying are which company sits underneath and how long the token has been listed.

2. Width converges near 1.9x

Range width = highest price since listing ÷ lowest. It measures how much ground the token has covered inside its own history.

The first four land between 1.888x and 1.975x, 4.6% apart.

That convergence is not trivial, because the industry is the only thing being held fixed:

• The windows differ by 33 days. LITEB has been listed 121 days, COHRB and CRDOB 88. By the usual logic — longer listing, more chances to print an extreme — the 121-day name should be visibly wider. It is the second narrowest.
• The market caps differ 12.9-fold. COHRB is $8.44M, CRDOB $654.5K.
• The unit prices differ 7.8-fold. LITEB is $844.45, AAOIB $69.51.

Three dimensions that should have produced spread produced none.

3. The counter-example: AAOIB breaks it from inside, and 1.95x is not special either

The table above invites a reading of "same industry, therefore same width." It does not hold, on two levels.

The first level is inside the group. AAOIB is 2.453x, listed the same day as MRVLB (2026-07-13) with the identical 110-day window, and 30% wider. Both underlyings sit on the optical interconnect layer; same wrapper, same chain, same venue, not one day of difference in the window — and the widths still separate. AAOIB is −56.8% from its high, the deepest drawdown of the five, and down 31.54% over 30 days, the worst of the five. A pattern that explains four names well does not explain the fifth.

Ranked by width from narrowest to widest among the 46 instruments listed 100 days or more: AAOIB is 39th, LITEB 29th, MRVLB 28th. AAOIB does not sit next to the other two; it sits well behind them.

The second level: 1.95x does not belong to optics. Ten instruments were listed on 2026-08-04, COHRB and CRDOB among them:

Inside the same 88-day window, three instruments are wider than either of these two, and none of them sits on the optical interconnect layer. A rare-earth miner and a datacenter operator both covered more ground.

And among the 28 common stocks listed 100 days or more, the median width is 1.768x — so 1.95x is only slightly above the common-stock median, not a signature value.

Which narrows what section 2 can support to this: among these five, four of the widths sit close together, and neither window length nor market cap pulled them apart. It cannot support "optics prices in a 1.95x range," and it cannot support "same industry, therefore same width."

One more comparison from that same cohort is worth recording: ALABB at 1.595x also has interconnect silicon underneath (Astera Labs), listed the same day as CRDOB in the same niche, yet 19% narrower. Tighten the label by one notch and the convergence falls apart.

4. Turnover differs 20.7-fold while the price barely differs at all

Put COHRB and CRDOB side by side. This is the cleanest pair in the snapshot: same listing day, same 88 days, same industry layer, same wrapper.

The four price rows almost coincide. Turnover is 20.7 times apart.

The reason is the denominator. Turnover = 24h volume ÷ market cap. Absolute volume for the two is the same order of magnitude ($1.19M against $1.91M) while market caps differ 12.9-fold, so the ratio differs 20.7-fold.

Where that lands in the book makes it starker:

• The 0.1412x on COHRB is the second-lowest of all 100, above only AMATB at 0.1297x.
• The 2.916x on CRDOB is the seventh-highest, behind INTWB 38.460x, MRNAB 10.307x, ALABB 5.109x, SNXXB 4.169x, UVXYB 3.732x and RDDTB 3.695x.

Turnover takes the two instruments in this industry whose prices match most closely and puts them at opposite ends of the distribution.

The previous piece established the numerator side of this: the 38.46x on INTWB comes from a $1.44M market cap, not from trading. This pair is the other half — with the numerators nearly equal, turnover can still differ 20.7-fold while the price differs not at all. So turnover is not a fact about the instrument. It is a fact about how many tokens the issuer put out.

MRVLB appeared once in that piece: its 24h volume of $3.73M was higher than that of its own 2x leveraged version MVLLB at $2.34M. Inside this group that figure takes on a new meaning — MRVLB is the only member down over 7 days (−13.58%), against +11.65%, +3.34%, +2.75% and +1.91% for the other four. It is both the only member with a leveraged derivative version and the only member that fell behind in the last week. This snapshot cannot establish that those two facts are related, but both point at the same thing: the 30-day declines of the five sit close together (−14.96% to −31.54%) while the 7-day numbers separate completely.

5. Putting the group back in the book: this is not a head story

Of the 100 instruments, 82 are negative over 30 days, with a median of −16.71%.

The five here are −14.96% / −24.66% / −27.26% / −27.97% / −31.54%. Four are worse than the median; only LITEB is slightly better.

Cut by listing month, the position of this group shows up:

Three of this group listed in July (AAOIB / LITEB / MRVLB) and two in August (COHRB / CRDOB). The August cohort has the lowest turnover of any month (0.537x); the October cohort has the highest (1.143x).

The size bracket also needs stating: across the book only 7 instruments are above $50M and 12 above $25M, while 61 sit below $5M and 33 below $1M, with a median of $2.39M. The largest here, COHRB at $8.44M, ranks 29th; the smallest, CRDOB at $654.5K, ranks 85th — the whole group lives in the middle and the tail.

One caliber trap to keep in view: a small denominator inflates turnover mechanically, so high turnover in the tail is first a consequence of a small market cap and only second a sign of trading. CRDOB turns over at 2.916x on $1.91M of absolute volume.

6. Structure: all five share one wrapper

These five share exactly the same structure as the other 95 bStocks instruments. The only thing that differs is which company sits underneath:

• The wrapper is a tracker certificate, not equity. The issuing entity is BTech Holdings Limited, ADGM / FSRA listed certificates.
• No voting rights.
• Dividends are passed through: a 30% US withholding deduction first, then reinvestment through a multiplier (see section 8).
• Reserves are covered by attestation, not an on-chain proof of reserve. Among comparable issuers xStocks uses Chainlink proof of reserve, which updates daily or on a 10% move in reserves and can be checked on-chain. An attestation cannot.
• Redemption requires KYC, with a $5 minimum.
• US persons are blocked.
• One chain. BNB Chain only, BSC deposits only, so a wrong-network transfer loses the asset.

This is a description of structure, not an allegation. But it settles one thing: no difference between these five can come from the wrapper, because the wrapper is the same one. That is also why the convergence in section 2 can be read as a controlled comparison.

7. The 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 open again until Monday. All five underlyings here are US-listed, so at the moment of this snapshot not one of the five reference prices exists.

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

So the 24-hour changes here read as follows: that window (Friday 06:06 UTC to Saturday 06:06 UTC) contains one full US session, so it is not a pure closed-market quote. But the snapshot itself lands inside the close, and for the two-plus days from there until Monday, these token prices are the only prices these names have.

There is one extra layer for this piece: the steadiest rows in section 4 — width, from high, in range — are built on extremes since listing and are unaffected by this weekend, while turnover uses 24h volume, whose window straddles the close. The two conclusions do not carry the same time sensitivity.

8. What this method cannot calculate

First, no premium or discount. The snapshot carries only the token price and no reference price for the underlying. More fundamentally, the bStocks dividend mechanism takes a 30% US withholding deduction and then reinvests through a multiplier — without knowing the current multiplier, the token unit price and the underlying share price are not comparable quantities. So this piece publishes no premium figure. That is an impossibility, not an oversight.

Second, no shares per token. The snapshot has no conversion ratio. The 4,327 CRDOB tokens in circulation cannot be converted into any number of shares without it.

Third, the range-width windows are not equal length. This group runs 88 / 88 / 110 / 110 / 121 days. Book-wide comparisons use only the 46 instruments listed 100 days or more — COHRB and CRDOB are not among those 46, which is why section 3 compares their widths only against the ten listed on the same day and gives them no book-wide rank. Even inside those 46 the windows differ by over a month.

Fourth, market cap is the CMC definition: price × circulating supply. The book total of $1,318.38M here is these 100 rows added up, while the /stocks page on this site shows $914M of on-chain value for the bStocks row — two figures from different sources at different moments, and they will not reconcile. This piece uses the former throughout and timestamps it everywhere.

Fifth, 100 of 105. CMC reports 105 instruments, the snapshot holds 100, and the missing 5 are in none of these statistics.

Sixth, turnover = 24h volume ÷ market cap. A small denominator inflates the ratio mechanically. Section 4 is built entirely on that fact, and the converse has to hold too: turnover cannot be used to compare how active two instruments are when their market caps are 12.9 times apart.

Seventh, "the same industry layer" is a line this piece drew. The snapshot has no industry field. Grouping these five companies onto an optics-and-interconnect layer rests on what each company does, not on any classification from the issuer or from CMC.

Conclusion. Hold the wrapper, the chain, the venue, the asset type and the industry layer all fixed, and four of five tokens land their range since listing inside a 4.6%-wide band between 1.888x and 1.975x — despite windows 33 days apart and market caps 12.9 times apart. How much ground a token covers is mostly decided by the company underneath it.

Turnover across the same five spans 0.141x to 2.916x, a 20.7-fold range. The clearest pair is COHRB and CRDOB: listed the same day, the same 88 days, widths 1.2% apart, range positions 0.5pp apart, turnover 20.7 times apart. The entire difference sits in market cap, the denominator.

What travels is one reading rule: do not read width and turnover together. Width answers how volatile the underlying is; turnover answers how many tokens the issuer put out relative to how many changed hands that day. The first converges once the industry is fixed. The second does not — and AAOIB at 2.453x is the reminder that even the first is a tendency, not a law.

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