One Level Deep
RESPECT's economic model separates two distinct funding questions:
Who pays to steward the RESPECT Platform (shared infrastructure)?
Who pays for the RESPECT Ecosystem (apps, localizations, services)?
The Platform is funded through trademark-based licensing, analogous to other global open-source platform stewards. Its costs are largely fixed and comparable to existing nonprofit platform organizations operating at global scale.
The Platform's marginal costs of scaling into a new country are profitably borne by RESPECT Certified Partners. These local firms train teachers, integrate software, and provide tech support under contract to Ministries of Education (perhaps supported by Development Partners), paid for by the money saved from free courseware and simpler procurement.
The Ecosystem's Products (courseware and its localizations) are funded primarily through donations, enabled by a sponsor-credit model. This preserves educational integrity while creating a scalable funding base for developers and localizers.
At scale, RESPECT becomes a self-sustaining flywheel: a shared platform enables developers to distribute free products, product usage generates evidence, evidence and competition fuel innovation, innovation increases quality, quality motivates donations, and donations sustain the products.
Because the model pays for value delivered — usage and verified outcomes — it is structurally indifferent to whether a product was created by a human developer, an AI pipeline, or a combination of both. This positions the economic model to absorb AI-generated content smoothly as AI capabilities mature (see AI in Africa's DPI-Ed, Essay 12).
RESPECT is Africa-first by mandate and governance while built to global standards, positioning it for international adoption.
This essay demonstrates that RESPECT is economically plausible, scalable, and aligned with African realities.
If the RESPECT™ Platform and all RESPECT Compatible™ products are free to every student and intermediary—teachers, parents, schools, and Ministries of Education—are free, then: Who will pay for it all, and how?
The answer rests on a deliberate separation between two distinct things:
The RESPECT Platform: a shared, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) infrastructure. Q1: Who will pay for the RESPECT Platform?
The RESPECT Compatible Products: the free applications & localizations that are enabled by the Platform. Q2: Who will pay for the RESPECT Compatible Products?
Each is funded differently, for different economic reasons.
The RESPECT Platform is a free and open-source software platform designed to make it easy for EdTech applications, localizations, and related services to support AUDA-NEPAD's African EdTech 2030: Vision & Plan.
RESPECT is Africa-first by mandate, governance, and initial deployment. Its purpose is to serve African Ministries of Education and African learners at continental scale. Africa is not a pilot market; it is the lead market.
At the same time, RESPECT is being built to global standards of robustness, security, and stewardship. Africa has already shown—most notably with M-Pesa—that systems designed for African realities can lead global waves when they work at scale. If RESPECT succeeds in Africa, adoption beyond Africa will not be speculative; it will be earned.
Estimating the cost of stewarding such a platform therefore requires a specific method.
There is public cost data for Africa-based digital platforms and civic-technology organizations. However, those data typically reflect national or sub-regional scope, project-based funding, or platforms embedded within government or donor programs. They do not provide a reliable benchmark for the steady-state cost of stewarding a reusable, continent-scale Digital Public Infrastructure over decades.
For a platform like RESPECT, long-run costs are driven not by geography but by stewardship responsibilities that exist everywhere: core software development and maintenance, security and quality assurance, standards compliance, ecosystem governance, and long-term technical continuity. These costs are largely fixed. Once the platform exists, the incremental cost of serving additional countries—within Africa or beyond it—is comparatively low.
For this reason, the only credible way to estimate the cost of stewarding Africa's Digital Public Infrastructure for Education is to benchmark against organizations that already perform this role at scale and that publish transparent, audited operating budgets. Today, those benchmarks come primarily from global nonprofit platform stewards.
This does not dilute RESPECT's Africa-first mission. It reflects a simple reality: responsible stewardship at scale looks the same everywhere.
With that framing, we can now pose the next question and examine the relevant benchmarks.
Q3: What will it cost, annually, to fund the development, governance, and marketing of the RESPECT Platform at scale?
Let's look at the audited operating costs of some successful non-profit software stewards. Because there is no credible data on the steady-state cost of stewarding an Africa-only digital platform at continental scale, the only reliable way to estimate cost is to examine comparable global platform stewards.
Moodle HQ, which serves as the global steward of the Moodle LMS ecosystem (which has over 80% market share in Africa), operates on an annual budget of approximately $24 million, supporting a core team of roughly 80–100 staff responsible for code maintenance, partner coordination, and ecosystem governance.
Axim Collaborative, the non-profit steward of Open edX, maintains an annual operating budget in the range of $25–30 million, funding platform development, standards stewardship, and global coordination.
In the Digital Public Infrastructure domain, the HISP Center at the University of Oslo, steward of the DHIS2 national health information platform used across dozens of countries, manages an annual grant portfolio of approximately $23 million.
Based on these comparators, we can answer Question 3 with Answer 3.
A3: $25 million per year is a reasonable estimate for the cost of development, governance, and marketing of the RESPECT Platform at global scale. Less in the first few years, perhaps, but never more than that.
Having established the scale and cost of the RESPECT Platform, we can now address how those costs are sustainably covered.
This brings us back to Question 1, as repeated in the section title above. The answer is simple:
A1: Licensees of the RESPECT trademark will cover the costs of the RESPECT Platform.
Many trademark-enabled revenue streams—of which a few are listed below—can run in parallel. Each one alone has sustained comparable nonprofit platforms at scale. Together, they form a resilient portfolio with high optionality:
​RESPECT-branded merchandise (like Product (RED)): Companies license the (RED) mark to signal support for fighting AIDS, donating a share of profits while boosting sales through ethical alignment. This has generated tens of millions of dollars per year. RESPECT could similarly license its brand to enable consumers to signal that they support resolving Africa's education crisis. Similar models: The American Heart Association, World Wildlife Fund, and Harvard.
Product Developer Associations (like LEED®, where USGBC owns the mark and GBCI operates as an arms-length certification body): Independent developers pay certification fees to a trusted, neutral gatekeeper (GBCI) to verify their buildings meet the standard. These fees generate tens of millions annually (nearly 100% of GBCI's revenue). Similar models: B-Corp, Bluetooth, Marine Stewardship Council.
RESPECT Certified Partners™ (like Moodle Certified Partners): Trained and certified independent service providers pay a royalty (typically 10% of gross revenue) to offer services under the trusted trademark. For over a decade (pre-2017), this single revenue stream funded nearly 100% of Moodle's core software development. Similar models: Kubernetes, NextCloud, and RedHat.
Events, training, and standards-related services delivered under the RESPECT brand (Linux Foundation): The public pays to (1) attend branded events and (2) receive training anchored in a trusted nonprofit brand. At the Linux Foundation, these two streams alone generate tens of millions annually. Similar models: W3C, Scrum Alliance, Project Management Institute.
As can be seen from the above examples, trademark revenue streams have sustained comparable nonprofit organizations for decades and are designed to scale with ecosystem growth, so they can be counted on to sustain RESPECT at maturity.
In the early years, Platform adoption and trademark revenue are necessarily limited. Trademark revenue therefore begins at zero and ramps gradually as Ministries, Certified Partners, and RESPECT Compatible™ products come online. During this period, Development Partner (DP) funding provides a temporary bridge (see Essay 27. The Ask, Sections 5 & 6), covering the gap between the Platform's operating costs and still-nascent trademark revenue.
This bridge is deliberately finite and mechanically defined. DP funding declines automatically as trademark revenue grows, dollar-for-dollar, without expanding the Platform's operating scope. The Platform's total annual operating budget rises to, and then stabilizes at, USD 25 million per year, after which trademark revenue fully replaces DP support.
The table below makes this transition explicit. It shows, for each year, the expected trademark revenue, the corresponding DP bridge required for Platform operations, and the resulting total Platform funding envelope.
| Year | Expected Trademark Revenue | Platform DP Funding (see Essay 27. The Ask) | Total Platform Funding |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| 2027 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| 2028 | 0.5 | 19.5 | 20.0 |
| 2029 | 2.5 | 22.5 | 25.0 |
| 2030 | 8.0 | 17.0 | 25.0 |
| 2031 | 17.0 | 8.0 | 25.0 |
| 2032 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 |
Several properties of this structure are intentional.
First, the trademark revenue ramp is conservative. Revenue is zero during the first two years (Tranche 1), reflecting the pilot scale of six countries, and follows an S-curve ramp from Year 3 as adoption expands across the continent.
Second, total Platform funding is capped. As trademark revenue increases, it displaces DP funding rather than expanding Platform expenditures. This preserves discipline and prevents revenue growth from creating structural dependence.
Third, DP funding is strictly transitional. Once trademark revenue reaches maturity, baseline Platform operations no longer require Development Partner support.
Taken together, this structure ensures that the RESPECT Platform transitions cleanly from donor-supported launch to market-aligned sustainability—without subsidy creep, without governance distortion, and without open-ended funding commitments.
Therefore, the answer to Q1—Who will pay for the RESPECT Platform?—is A1: RESPECT's trademark licensees.
However, this answer requires some clarification:
Q1a: Who pays the marginal costs of the RESPECT Platform's growth?
That question is answered in the section below.
RESPECT's economics are best understood through the "asset-light" structure used by Africa's most successful Digital Public Infrastructure: DHIS2.
DHIS2 is the health management information system used by over 60 Ministries of Health across the Global South. It achieved global scale because it relies on a deliberate economic separation between the Platform (the shared infrastructure) and the Services (the non-shared local application of the shared infrastructure).
In DHIS2's asset-light model, the central steward (University of Oslo):
Internalizes the cost of developing the shared, global software platform. The cost of developing the platform is essentially the same whether it serves five countries or fifty.
Externalizes the marginal costs of applying that platform to meet the unique needs of a given country: training health workers, customizing forms, and integrating DHIS2 with the country's digital infrastructure. This application work is done by the HISP Network, a federation of independent, local technical service providers.
The marginal cost of expanding DHIS2 into a new country is profitably borne by the local HISP members, who are paid through independent contracts with Ministries of Health (often funded by Development Partners). Further, once the DHIS2 system has been fully adopted within a country, the costs of maintaining its use are considerably lower than the cost of scaling its use out across the country. These lower maintenance costs are more likely to be internalized by the country's Ministry of Health without external support. Knowing that DHIS2's scale-out costs fall after a country's adoption is completed—while the public benefit of its use grows exponentially—makes it easier for Development Partners to decide to invest in that scale-out.
RESPECT applies this exact same structure to education.
Just as a:
Ministry of Health contracts with a local HISP Network member to provide training, integration, tech support, etc. wrt DHIS2, a
Ministry of Education would contract with a RESPECT Certified Partner™ to provide training, integration, tech support services, etc. wrt RESPECT.
The Spix Foundation has already engaged a leading member of the HISP Network to help plan how to train & certify the HISP Network members to expand their existing DHIS2 services to offer RESPECT services also.
This economic structure keeps the RESPECT Platform free and open while enabling a vibrant, locally grounded, self-sustaining partner ecosystem.
Therefore, to answer to:
Q1a: "Who pays the marginal costs of the RESPECT Platform's growth?", is
A1a: Ministries of Education (often funded by Development Partners),
...with the money saved from getting their EdTech courseware for free and from dramatically simplifying their purchasing process ("choose it and use it").
That brings us back to Question 2:
Q2: Who will pay for the RESPECT Compatible Products?
The RESPECT Products include the RESPECT Compatible apps and their localizations. The economics of the Products are intentionally separate from those of the Platform.
Before we continue, a clarification: to earn RESPECT Compatible™ certification, an app must be free and complete—no features locked, no in-app purchases, no premium upgrades, no "loot boxes". Of course, app vendors can offer non-free or incomplete versions outside of the RESPECT Ecosystem.
The primary funding mechanism for RESPECT Compatible Products is the RESPECT Ecosystem Fund.
The Fund pools contributions from multiple sources and allocates them according to transparent rules. In its baseline configuration, funds are distributed as follows:
60% → App Developers, initially pro rata by usage and later informed by educational impact
15% → Localizers, based on usage of localized app versions
25% → the RESPECT Platform Fund, supplementing the Platform's trademark revenues (with this share expected to decline as trademark income grows)
Curriculum mapping costs during the transitional Mapper period (Years 1–4) are covered by the Platform Fund's 25% share. The Spix Foundation selects which applications are mapped using Platform Fund resources; app developers, Ministries of Education, and Development Partners may commission additional mappings at their own expense. At realistic African specialist rates, Mapper costs represent a small fraction of the Platform Fund allocation (see Essay 23 for cost estimates).
Usage-based payouts provide early market signals. As impact data becomes available, payout formulas can progressively weight verified impact, aligning incentives with educational results.
Through the RESPECT Ecosystem Fund, rather than evaluating individual apps or teams, Development Partners support the ecosystem as a whole. RESPECT then uses observed usage—and later, verified impact—to determine how payouts are allocated. Donors can therefore support the best EdTech in Africa without needing to predict which solutions will succeed.
Importantly, learner data is not allowed to be monetized by any participant in the RESPECT Ecosystem. The RESPECT Platform sends learner-app interaction data to schools and Ministries of Education—honoring the Malabo Convention—from which it is federated up to the continental level (as health data is federated today) for research purposes only.
This answers Question 2:
Q2: Who will pay for the RESPECT Ecosystem?
A2: Donors—philanthropic, bilateral, multilateral, Development Partners, DFIs, corporate, and/or public.
One might ask why—beyond altruism—anyone would choose to donate to the RESPECT Ecosystem Fund. That question is answered in the next essay in this series (Sponsor Credits).
At maturity:
The RESPECT Platform—development, maintenance, governance, and marketing—is sustained by trademark-enabled revenues.
RESPECT Certified Partners™—who profit from bearing the marginal costs of the RESPECT Ecosystem's expansion—are sustained by contracts from Ministries of Education, private schools, religious schools, and NGOs schools, perhaps funded in turn by Development Partners.
The RESPECT Ecosystem—of apps and their localizations—is sustained by donations from a mix of the public, governments, Development Partners, and corporations.
Together, platform stewardship, partner-led scale-out, free courseware, measured usage, pooled donations, and reinvestment create an economic flywheel that sustains every aspect of RESPECT at scale—and delivers world-class digital learning for free to every learner in Africa.
That is who pays, and how.
The next essay in this series is 09. Understanding Sponsor Credits (SpoDits).