diff --git a/_blogposts/2025-09-01-let-unwrap.mdx b/_blogposts/2025-09-01-let-unwrap.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..401a8071e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/_blogposts/2025-09-01-let-unwrap.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+author: rescript-team
+date: "2025-09-01"
+badge: roadmap
+title: let?
+description: |
+  A new let-unwrap syntax just landed in ReScript.
+---
+
+After long discussions we finally decided on an unwrap syntax for both the `option` and `result` types that we are happy with and that still matches the explicitness of ReScript we all like.
+
+# What is it exactly?
+
+`let?` or `let-unwrap` is a tiny syntax that unwraps `result`/`option` values and *early-returns* on `Error`/`None`. It’s explicitly **experimental** and **disabled by default** behind a new “experimental features” gate.
+
+### Example
+
+Before showing off this new feauture, let's explore why it is useful. Consider a chain of `async` functions that are dependent on the result of the previous one. The naive way to write this in modern ReScript with `async`/`await` is to just `switch` on the results.
+
+```res
+let getUser = async id =>
+  switch await fetchUser(id) {
+  | Error(error) => Error(error)
+  | Ok(res) =>
+    switch await decodeUser(res) {
+    | Error(error) => Error(error)
+    | Ok(decodedUser) =>
+      switch await ensureUserActive(decodedUser) {
+      | Error(error) => Error(error)
+      | Ok() => Ok(decodedUser)
+      }
+    }
+  }
+```
+
+Two observations: 
+  1. with every `switch` expression, this function gets nested deeper.
+  2. The `Error` branch of every `switch` is just an identity mapper (neither wrapper nor contents change)
+
+This means even though `async`/`await` syntax is available in ReScript for some time now, it is also understandable that people created their own `ResultPromise` libraries to handle such things with less lines of code, e.g.:
+
+```res
+module ResultPromise = {
+  let flatMapOk = async (p: promise<'res>, f) =>
+    switch await p {
+    | Ok(x) => await f(x)
+    | Error(_) as res => res
+    }
+}
+
+let getUserPromises = id =>
+  fetchUser(id)
+  ->ResultPromise.flatMapOk(user => Promise.resolve(user->decodeUser))
+  ->ResultPromise.flatMapOk(decodedUser => ensureUserActive(decodedUser))
+```
+
+While this is much shorter, it is also harder to understand because we have two wrapper types here, `promise` and `result`. And we have to wrap the non-async type in a `Promise.resolve` in order to stay on the same type level.
+
+```rescript
+let getUser = async (id) => {
+  let? Ok(user)  = await fetchUser(id)
+  let? Ok(decodedUser) = decodeUser(user)
+  let? Ok() = await ensureUserActive(decodedUser)
+  Ok(decodedUser)
+}
+```
+With the new `let-unwrap` syntax, `let?` in short, we now have to follow the happy-path (in the scope of the function). And it's immediately clear that `fetchUser` is an `async` function while `decodeUser` is not. There is no nesting as the `Error` is automatically mapped. But be assured the error case is also handled as the type checker will complain when you don't handle the `Error` returned by the `getUser` function.
+
+<!-- TODO: demonstrate error handling with polymorphic variants a little more -->
+
+This desugars to a **sequence** of `switch`/early-returns that you’d otherwise write by hand, so there’s **no extra runtime cost** and it plays nicely with `async/await`. Same idea works for `option` with `Some(...)` (and the PR also extends support so the left pattern can be `Error(...)`/`None`, not just `Ok(...)`/`Some(...)`).
+
+Beware it targets built-ins only: `result` and `option`. (Custom variants still need `switch`.) And it is for block or local bindings only; top-level usage is rejected. 
+Compiled JS code is the straightforward if/return form (i.e., “zero cost”). 
+
+### How to enable it (experimental)
+
+We have added an **experimental-features infrastructure** to the toolchain. The corresponding compiler flag is `-enable-experimental`. This means you can enable `let?` in your `rescript.json`s `compiler-flags` and it forwards the feature to the compiler. 
+
+This is purely a syntactical change so performance is not affected.
+
+