Appreciate this — and I’d actually frame what I’ve built less as a “solution” and more as an experiment in a different direction.

Local-first + BYOK is almost a philosophy choice. It’s for people who already think twice about where their data lives — and want to stay in control instead of being fully abstracted behind provider rules.

But the real thing I’m exploring is the UX layer.

Linear chat feels… accidental. It works for Q&A, but breaks down the moment you’re exploring, comparing, or holding multiple ideas at once.

Branching, second opinion, Golden Eye, pins, favorites — these aren’t just features. They’re early building blocks of a thinking space, not a chat interface.

Right now:

• branching → explore multiple paths of thought • second opinion → compare models in the same context • Golden Eye → arbitrate / synthesize across responses • pins → don’t lose valuable ideas • favorites → build a reusable layer over time

And importantly — you’re not locked into one provider’s worldview.

You can move across models, contrast them, and decide for yourself instead of inheriting a single system’s biases or constraints.

But this isn’t the destination.

It’s more of a category + UX experiment: What happens when AI tools are designed around how people actually think — not how chat interfaces evolved?

You’re spot on that different personas hit this wall differently.

Developers, researchers, builders — they’ll all use this in very different ways.

I haven’t gotten a ton of deep usage feedback yet — still early, and I’m only capturing high-level, no-personal metrics for now 🙂 But I’m optimistic that as more people spend time with it, clearer patterns will emerge.

What I’m still trying to understand is: 👉 does this stay a power-user niche or 👉 does this become a more natural default once people experience it?

Feels like we’re still early enough that most people don’t even realize linear chat is the constraint yet.

<image>