This page answers three questions that public data can actually answer: whose debt matures when, how dependent the secured structure is on a single issuer, and where the issuance spread sits relative to the sector. A fourth — cash-bond versus CDS basis — we do not do, because this benchmark carries no CDS. Inventing a basis is exactly the error we were caught on.
Aggregated on notional outstanding, year taken from each bond's maturity date. The index itself carries no maturity calendar — this is the same 13 bonds re-sorted.
| Maturity year | Notional | Share | Bonds | Issuers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2030 | $8.95B | 31.9% | 4 | 4 |
| 2031 | $17.86B | 63.6% | 8 | 5 |
| 2032 | $1.25B | 4.5% | 1 | 1 |
2031 alone is 63.6%. Not a coincidence: most of these were 5–6 year paper issued in 2025–2026 to fund capacity.
Same year, very uneven distribution: the bonds below mature between 2031-02-01 and 2031-03-01.
| Maturity | Issuer | Coupon | Notional | Seniority | Issue spread bp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2031-02-01 | CoreWeave | 9% | $1.75B | unsecured | 506.4 |
| 2031-03-01 | Applied Digital | 6.75% | $2.15B | secured | 308.1 |
| 2031-03-01 | Cipher Mining | 6.125% | $2.00B | secured | 237.8 |
Overlapping refinancing needs are the hardest pressure fact visible in public terms. It shows the window exists; it does not say refinancing fails.
Top three are 64.3%. The unsecured tier has 1 issuer — every number in that tier describes that one company, not the market.
| Issuer | Notional | Share | Bonds | Structure | Notional-wtd spread bp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CoreWeave | $7.75B | 27.6% | 4 | all unsecured | 540.1 |
| Applied Digital | $6.09B | 21.7% | 3 | all secured | 395.4 |
| Cipher Mining | $4.21B | 15.0% | 3 | all secured | 260.5 |
| Galaxy Digital | $3.51B | 12.5% | 1 | all secured | 544.4 |
| Core Scientific | $3.30B | 11.8% | 1 | all secured | 376.1 |
| TeraWulf | $3.20B | 11.4% | 1 | all secured | 402.6 |
The table puts the issuance layer (ours) beside the secondary layer (ICE BofA via FRED). Different definitions, samples and dates — never subtract them as a "premium"; use them as order-of-magnitude context only.
| Basis | bp | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| NCSX-IS (this benchmark · issuance layer) | 432.3 | 13 bonds, each on its own pricing date |
| NCSX unsecured (issuance layer) | 540.1 | CoreWeave only |
| NCSX secured (issuance layer) | 391.2 | 9 bonds, 5 issuers |
| US HY OAS (secondary layer) | 332 | ICE BofA, whole high-yield market |
| US HY BB OAS (secondary layer) | 199 | ICE BofA |
| US HY B OAS (secondary layer) | 351 | ICE BofA |
| US HY CCC OAS (secondary layer) | 1297 | ICE BofA |
NCSX-IS 432.3bp sits above US HY OAS 332bp, but the first is an issuance-time figure and the second is a same-day quote. Writing "richer than HY by 100.3bp" would be wrong, and we do not write it.
Maturity distribution, seniority structure, issuer concentration, and the order-of-magnitude gap to the sector. Every line traces to an SEC term.
Default probability, refinancing success, systemic risk. 13 bonds cannot support any probabilistic claim.
"NCSX-IS 432.3bp (SpreadBench, v0.2.1-real, as of 2026-11-04); maturity structure per SpreadBench stress monitor."
Raw JSON: /api/v1/real/index.json. Per-bond terms and SEC links: data page.