Savings plans that hold up past month one
Most people know they should save more. The gap between knowing and doing is where this platform lives — workshops built around real decisions, not theory.
see the program
by the numbers
Scale that gives the platform its shape — not its credibility
Running since 2020, with each cohort shaping the next iteration. The curriculum has changed 3 times based on participant feedback.
Each workshop runs for 6 focused weeks — long enough to build a real savings structure, short enough to stay demanding.
Participants per cohort, drawn from cities and smaller towns across Poland. Remote access is built in, not bolted on.
Structured around decisions, not definitions
Generic financial literacy courses explain what a savings rate is. This platform asks you to set one, test it against your actual income, and adjust when it breaks.
Every exercise is tied to a real scenario — a salary change, a large purchase, an emergency fund gap. You work through it, not past it.
Assignments over lectures
Each session ends with a specific task tied to your own finances — not a case study about someone else's situation.
Layered complexity
Week 1 covers a 3-month emergency buffer. By week 4, participants are stress-testing a 12-month savings plan against variable income.
Peer review built in
Participants review each other's savings structures during weeks 3 and 5. Seeing 7 different approaches to the same problem is often more useful than any single lesson.
Regional context matters
Exercises account for the cost-of-living differences between Warsaw and Białystok. A savings plan that works in one city might be unrealistic in another.
When a plan stalls, there is somewhere to take it
Savings plans break most often in weeks 2 and 4 — when the novelty fades and the first unexpected expense arrives. That is a predictable pattern, and the support structure accounts for it.
Facilitators hold two open office hours per week. These are not Q&A sessions — they are working sessions where you bring a specific problem and leave with a revised approach.
- Asynchronous feedback on submitted assignments within 48 hours
- A shared problem log where participants post obstacles — often answered by peers before facilitators reach them
- A structured mid-point check-in at week 3 to catch drift before it becomes a pattern
The people in the room shape what you take out of it
Cohorts are deliberately kept at 38 participants — large enough for varied perspectives, small enough that nobody disappears into the background. Participants come from different income brackets, employment types, and cities, which makes the peer review process genuinely useful rather than a formality.
Weronika Błaszczyk
Freelance graphic designer, Gdańsk
Variable income made savings feel impossible. Seeing how three other freelancers in the cohort structured their buffers gave me a framework I could actually adapt.
Tomasz Dąbrowski
Primary school teacher, Rzeszów
I had a plan on paper but kept abandoning it. The week 3 peer review caught two assumptions I'd made that didn't hold up when someone else read them.
Agnieszka Kowalczyk
Logistics coordinator, Lublin
The cohort format meant I had 37 people who were working on the same problem at the same time. That accountability is hard to manufacture on your own.
What six weeks actually feels like
The first session is disorienting for most participants — not because the material is difficult, but because it asks for specifics before you feel ready to give them. That discomfort is intentional. By week 4, the same participants are stress-testing their own plans against scenarios they built themselves.
Progress is not linear. Expect one week that clicks immediately and one that requires revisiting. That is the normal shape of this kind of learning.
Mapping the actual picture
You document income, fixed costs, and spending patterns with more precision than most people have attempted before. The goal is accuracy, not optimism.
Building and breaking a draft plan
A savings structure goes on paper and immediately gets stress-tested — against a job loss scenario, a 15% income drop, and a sudden expense of 3,000 PLN.
Adjusting for what you actually learned
The final plan is not the one you started with. Participants revise based on peer feedback, facilitator input, and their own mid-program experience of trying to follow it.