The question every building owner asks first is the right one: what do I get, and what am I signing? This note sets out the host contract as we have designed it, number by number, and is explicit about which of those numbers are contracted and which are modelled. Everything here is the standard schedule; a specific site's terms are in that site's documents.
Three numbers
The floor: ₹4.87 lakh per mill per year. Contracted, fixed in the hosting terms, paid monthly by bank transfer, before the meter adds a rupee. It is owed whether the mill runs at full duty, at half, or sits idle waiting for work. It is the number a lender can underwrite and the number a landlord's lawyer can read.
The kicker: modelled at ₹7.2 lakh a year. A payment read off the same revenue-grade meter that settles the electricity, so it rises and falls with how much the mill actually runs. At 60% duty, the steady state our model assumes, it comes to about ₹7.2 lakh, which puts the modelled total at just over ₹12 lakh a year. That word, modelled, is doing real work. A host's kicker is read off that site's own meter over its own year; the figure here is the model's, not a measurement.
The cap: ₹15 to 18 lakh a year. The kicker cannot exceed it. The cap bounds the host's income from above and, just as importantly, bounds the mill's cost. A cap that never binds costs the host nothing. A cap that binds means the mill is running harder than our model expects, which is a good problem.
Floor: ₹4.87 L, contracted
Kicker at 60% duty: ₹7.2 L, modelled
Modelled total: ₹12.07 L per mill per year
Kicker per point of duty: ₹7.2 L ÷ 60 ≈ ₹12,000
At full duty on the same slope: ≈ ₹12 L of kicker, still inside the capOn the modelled slope a mill does not reach the cap even at full duty. The cap is not there to trim the host's income; it gives the cost of the room a known ceiling. If duty ever runs far enough above the model to make the cap bind, the host will have been paid more than the model promised on the way there.
Why a floor and not a percentage
We could have offered hosts a percentage of what the mill earns. We chose not to, for three reasons that all point the same way.
A percentage makes the host a partner in a business they cannot see into, paid in a currency they do not measure, with an income that could be zero in a bad quarter. A floor makes them a landlord with a bonus, which is a role every building owner already understands.
A percentage is also unfinanceable. The mill is equipment, and the lender who finances equipment wants the cost of the room it sits in to be a fixed number. The floor is that number.
And a percentage invites the wrong conversation. A host who is paid on the machine's revenue has an interest in its customers, its pricing and its utilisation, none of which they control. A host who is paid a floor plus a metered kicker has an interest in the mill running, which they can help with, and nothing else.
So the structure is a landlord's structure: a fixed payment for the room, a bounded bonus read off a meter the host can see, and electricity at cost. Never a share of what the mill earns.
Power at actuals, never netted
The mill's electricity is metered on a revenue-grade meter, the same class the licensee bills on, installed at the tie-in. Every unit is reimbursed to the host at the host's own tariff, as a separate line on the monthly statement, with no markup in either direction. It is never netted against the floor or the kicker, and it is never resold: the host does not sell electricity to us, and we do not sell it to anyone. The mill draws on the building's existing connection, and the building is repaid what that costs it.
A ten-kilowatt mill at 60% duty: 10 × 8,760 × 0.6 ≈ 52,600 kWh per year
At a blended ₹9.0 per kWh (band ₹8 to 11 by state): ≈ ₹4.7 L per year
A pass-through, not income: paid at the host's tariff, not oursKeeping the line separate keeps the roles clear. The building remains the consumer of record on its own connection. We repay its cost. Nobody becomes a seller of electricity, and the host never funds a rupee of the mill's running. Where the room's cooling unit sits on the building's own circuit, its draw is metered and allocated the same way, and how that allocation is written is set in the hosting terms for each site.
Two other lines belong here because they are about the building's supply rather than its income. The mill is never wired to the host's generator or UPS, so it never draws on the building's backup. And it is first to shed: if the building's load management ever has to drop something, the mill goes before the lifts, the pumps and the lights, and that order is in the contract.
Two documents
The paper is deliberately short.
-
A registered leave-and-licence for the room. The same instrument class telecom rooftops and bank ATM rooms use. It creates no tenancy. It names the room, the term and the notice.
-
One master agreement for everything else. The mill, the floor, the kicker, the meter, the insurance, access, and exit. An owner with a portfolio signs one estate master agreement instead, and adds rooms under it as they are graded.
We handle every filing and every cost: the registration, the electrical filing before energisation, and the one disclosure endorsement the host's property insurer needs. The mill is ours, it is remotely run, and it is on our insurance with the building named as additional insured.
Exit in 48 hours
Exit is written into the hosting terms. Thirty days' notice, and the mill is out in 48 hours, the room returned as found. That clause is in the contract, not the brochure. What happens to the storage in the mill on exit is set out in the same agreement.
Forty-eight hours is the exit promise and nothing else. Installation runs on the mill's own clock, 14 to 18 weeks from order to first token, which we have written about separately and which has its own assumptions.
The precedents
None of this is new. A bank ATM room is a few square metres let on a fixed rent: the bank's machine, the bank's insurance, the bank's cash, sometimes a sub-meter for the air conditioner paid at actuals, and a landlord who staffs nothing. A rooftop telecom tower is a leave-and-licence at a fixed rent: the operator's equipment, power through a separate meter at actuals, technicians who arrive with notice. Neither landlord became a partner in banking or telephony. Both structures have run for two decades on the same three ideas: a fixed payment, a meter, and somebody else's equipment. We use the same instrument class and the same shape, and we add a bounded kicker because the mill, unlike a cash machine, has a duty cycle worth sharing the upside of.
What is not in it
No capital from the host. No staffing. No change to the building's own supply or its own fixed charges. No water. No structural work. A locked enclosure, smoke detection, clean-agent suppression and an alarm-triggered power cut-off, all inside the mill, all ours to maintain.
Modelled, not yet measured
To be precise one last time: the floor is contracted. The kicker and the cap are modelled. Each site's meter measures the kicker, and it is a meter the host can read. If the model is wrong, the host will know before anyone else does, and so will we.