Skip to content
DRAFT — placeholder ledger. Callipso is pre-launch; no funds have been raised yet. Every figure and study below is a structural placeholder.

The Research Ledger

Money in, science out — in the open. When you pay for Callipso you fund research, not margin. This is the live record of every dollar: what we raised, which studies it funds, who runs them, and what they find.

$0
Raised for research
DRAFT: net subscription revenue
0
Participants
DRAFT: opt-in subscribers
$0
Avg contribution
DRAFT: pay-what-you-want, floor $3
$0
Disbursed to studies
DRAFT

Last reconciled 2026-06-29. DRAFT — wording for the revenue figure (“100% of net subscription revenue”) is not final.

How the money flows

$3 Submit → the learning-science lab

The Submit tier is a 100% pass-through. Net revenue funds building Sapio’s in-house learning-science lab — starting with the first hire, a cognitive scientist — the science behind the free tools.

$8 Full → the product

The Full tier is a clean product purchase — no research split. It unlocks the full developer suite and keeps the software being built.

Figures are net of card fees. The payment processor takes a flat ~$0.30 + 2.9% per charge — about a third of a $1 contribution, ~13% at $3, under 10% at $5+ — so more of a larger contribution lands. Callipso keeps $0 either way; the only cut is the processor’s.

Re-run the science our tools are built on — in the open, at real-world scale.

Sapio — Callipso's free learning tab — is engineered from published learning-science results. The mission is to build an in-house learning-science lab that replicates those results with consenting users, settles the open questions, and publishes every finding — funded entirely by the people who use it, from $3 a month.

The roadmap — what happens next

01

Run the first replication: reading aloud vs. silent recall

Next

Pre-register and run a real study of the production effect — does speaking an answer aloud during recall beat recalling it silently? — inside Sapio's own read-aloud loop, with consenting users as participants.

Doable now, solo: doing and publishing this needs no accreditation and no diploma — preprint servers (OSF / PsyArXiv) have zero gate. The only real requirement is a genuine, pre-registered protocol.

02

Publish the receipt

Next

Post the preprint and the open, anonymized dataset, then wire the outcome into this public ledger. "Money in, science out" becomes verifiable rather than a promise.

Transparency is the whole pitch — the result ships whether it confirms the effect or not.

03

Turn the app into a continuous experiment

Planned

With explicit informed consent, embed small randomized content-formulation contrasts into everyday review — and capture the signal almost no one has: did a real person actually remember, two weeks later?

Outcome-labeled retention at scale is the unique asset — most edtech optimizes proxies (clicks, time-on-app); this optimizes whether learning actually stuck.

04

Replicate the rest of the stack

Planned

Pre-registered replications of the other effects Sapio relies on — pretesting, spacing, retrieval practice, recall-by-analogy — each run in the open and wired into the public ledger.

05

Formalize the research arm

Planned

Once the funding supports it: register a research vehicle (a fonds de dotation), bring on a credentialed lead researcher, and use the French R&D framework (the CIR tax credit; the agrément CIR to route third-party funding) so the loop is state-recognized, not just self-declared.

None of this is required to start — it is the step that makes the funding loop tax-real and audit-proof once money is flowing.

06

Build the institute

Vision

The long-horizon bet: a research center under one thesis — understanding and amplifying intelligence, biological and artificial — sited for talent density (the Paris-Saclay learning-neuroscience cluster is the natural home), funded by the people who learn with the tools.

Moonshot, scale-contingent — stated honestly as a destination, not a near-term claim.

Studies

Learning scienceComplete

DRAFT: Distributed vs. massed practice in self-directed review

DRAFT: Does spacing review sessions beat cramming for long-term retention in everyday learners (not lab undergrads)?

Run by: DRAFT: TBD independent learning-science lab

Result: DRAFT: Settled in the literature — spacing wins. Seeded here as a completed example to show the "result" column.

Allocated
$0
Learning scienceRunning

DRAFT: Read-aloud vs. silent recall

DRAFT: Does speaking an answer aloud during retrieval practice improve retention over recalling it silently?

Run by: DRAFT: TBD university partner

Allocated
$0
Learning scienceFunding

DRAFT: Recall-by-analogy vs. verbatim recall

DRAFT: Is recalling a concept by re-deriving an analogy more durable than verbatim recall — and what is the time cost of analogy-making?

Run by: DRAFT: TBD

Allocated
$0

Become a participant

The tools are free. If you want to fund the science behind them, the $3 Submit tier is the cheapest way to join the study.