Case Study
Last updated
Last updated
The real estate concept of WalkMining begins with understanding the relationship between pay-to-player and free-to-player. Lisa has 4 lands: Land 1, Land 2, Land 3, and Land 4. She bought the NFT (pay-to-player) and placed it in her Lands, raising the mining efficiency more than usual. She has her own Lands situated with the NFTs, so she is a ‘Landlord’ now. Tom is another WalkMining user who is reluctant to spend money on buying Land and NFT. So Tom cannot be a landlord since he does not have his own Land (free-to-player). However, Tom can ‘Tour (rent another user’s Land)’ Lisa’s Land (real estate) to rent her NFT’s effect. In this case, Tom is a ‘Tenant’ in Lisa (landlord)’s Land.
In Land, there is a ‘time-limit mission’ which is to walk a set number of steps within 48 hours of the set time. Lisa, the landlord also can try for this mission in her own Lands. By participating in the time-limit mission, Lisa can earn more tokens compared to normal walking because the NFT effect (higher mining efficiency: earning more tokens by clicking 1 mining ticket) is applied. For example, a free-to-player (user who doesn’t have land and NFT) can convert 24,000 steps to tokens for 2 days, and get 30 $WKM tokens. However, the time-limit mission raises the mining efficiency so users can convert more tokens than usual. So if Lisa tries out for the time-limit mission for 48 hours, she will earn 100 $WKM tokens since she adopted the NFT effect on her Land 1.
Lisa owns 4 Lands, which she is able to rent to other tenants (free-to-player). Tom and Alex do not have any NFT or Lands so they decided to ‘Tour’ Lisa’s Lands. If Tom starts touring on Land 1 (renting real estate), Alex cannot tour on Land 1. Alex needs to choose between Land 2, 3, or 4 because 1 real estate is available for 1 tenant. In terms of choosing Land to tour, Tom and Alex can compare the NFT effect and select the one which might be most efficient. Lisa, the landlord, lets Tom and Alex tour her Lands and she also can earn tokens because tenants (Tom and Alex) should share their profits with the landlord after touring.
When Tom decided to tour Lisa’s Land 1, the tenant should share the profit with the landlord after touring (renting). The profit share proposition is fixed at 5:5 (Landlord: Tenant). Also, since it is the concept of a real estate renting approach, the tenant needs to pay a deposit to the landlord before starting touring. While the landlord lends the Land, the landlord cannot adopt the NFT effect that is situated in his Land, so the deposit system is to guarantee the landlord’s profit by the policy. The deposit can be returned to the tenant if he completes the time-limit mission successfully. However, if the mission is failed, the deposit is given to the landlord. The amount of the deposit is priced at plus 10% of the tenant's earnings. For example, if Tom and Alex tour Lisa’s Land 1, they can see how much they can earn after touring on the APP, and the deposit amount is plus 10% of their earnings. They pay the deposit before starting touring. After Tom finishes the tour, Lisa gives the deposit back to Tom. On the other hand, if Alex fails to complete the time-limit mission, the given deposit will be Lisa’s profit. In the case of Tom’s tour, he gained Lisa’s NFT effect and earned more profit compared to usual walking. Then Tom needs to share his profit with Lisa, the landlord after the tour is finished according to the compromised profit share proportion. To be specific, if Tom usually earns 1 $WKM when he walks, he can earn 4 $WKM tokens (1 $WKM + 3 $WKM) when he tours on the +300% NFT effect of Lisa’s Land 1. In this case, the deposit will be 1.65 $WKM because Tom earns 1.5 $WKM after touring, and 110% of the 1.5 %WKM is 1.65 $WKM. Therefore, Tom gets 2.5 $WKM tokens (1 $WKM + 1.5 $WKM) after completing the missions on the tour and Lisa gets 1.5 $WKM tokens.
