The three models
| Model | Who invests | Property share | Fits when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our investment (recommended) | We fund devices, construction, O&M | 30–40% of service revenue | No budget; no appetite for equipment risk |
| Joint investment | Both, by agreed ratio | Up to 50–60% | Some budget; want a say |
| Self-procurement, our O&M | Property funds all | 100% of revenue; annual O&M fee to us | Budget available; long-term holding intent |
In the investment model the property contributes the site and coordination; we carry the capital, the depreciation and the repairs. In self-procurement the property keeps everything and pays an annual service fee — the highest long-term return, the heaviest management duty. The model comparison puts the three on one sheet with your numbers.
The four things properties worry about — answered
- Safety liability. Per-port RCDs, overload protection, full-charge auto-stop; construction to fire code with acceptance documents; product liability insurance; responsibility boundaries written into the contract.
- Resident complaints. The platform runs the 7×24 service line — complaints come to us, not the front desk. Faults answered in 4 hours, attended in 24.
- Grid reinforcement. Load measured first; dispatch beats reinforcement wherever possible; when reinforcement is unavoidable we handle the application and share the cost per the model.
- Revenue opacity. The property backend shows every device's sessions, duration and income, with daily or monthly exportable statements.
How cooperation proceeds
- First conversation — by phone or on site: community size, e-bike count, electrical condition.
- Free survey — a data-backed report and a preliminary scheme.
- Model and share ratio agreed; cooperation contract signed, typically 5–8 years.
- Public notice and utility application — committee liaison and templates included.
- Construction in 7–15 days; acceptance and handover.
- Long-term operation — platform monitoring, scheduled inspection, quarterly settlement.
Who we already work with
Our cooperation partners include Lantian Zhihui Property (30+ communities in Yantai), Zhongtai Property and Fangsi Parking, across Zhifu, Laishan, the Development Zone, Fushan and Muping — 300+ communities in total, from new commodity housing to late-1990s renovations, with electrical conditions from roomy to desperate. District pages such as Zhifu describe local conditions; the full type-by-type record is on case studies.
The three disputes that actually end partnerships
Across our projects, devices rarely end a cooperation — unclear paper does. Electricity settlement: who pays the utility and how it is reimbursed, settlement cycle, late-payment handling — written down or the first reconciliation turns sour. Safety responsibility: the device, the installation and user damage have different liable parties; we table a responsibility list at proposal stage. Exit: who owns the equipment at term end, what happens if the property changes hands, how handover works — agreed early, negotiated never.
The sharing base — where the fights start
Sharing talks stall on one question: share of what? Revenue is intuitive for the property but leaves it effectively funding the electricity; gross margin (revenue minus electricity minus O&M) reflects real economics but demands trusted meter data. Our answer is to move metering, reconciliation and settlement onto the platform, where the property and committee read the numbers themselves — disputes shrink to zero arguments worth having. Compare the bases numerically in the model comparison.
Common questions
Is the share ratio negotiable? Yes — it follows investment ratio, site quality and electricity cost, priced per project. Contract length and exit? Typically 5–8 years with contractual exit mechanics on notice. Settlement cycle? Monthly by default, quarterly supported; statements exportable at any time. Old communities without a committee? Yes — the neighbourhood committee or property organises; we have done it many times.