confusing branding = harder to sell?

I'm considering to suggest the hyper:// protocol to an academic community, as they are academic people only interested in a layer which stores/sends (versioned) documents to local devices.

The only thing I've noticed, is that there's no hypercore.org website to organize the protocol.
Instead, for example this repository links to docs.holepunch.to which redirects to docs.pears.com (a bit confusing).
This might make it harder to 'sell' hyper:// as an open protocol.
Imho the hyper > holepunch.to > pears.com rebranding (perceptionally by URL redirects) could potentially give the impression of a startup pivoting to get profitable (while I think your mission is far greater).

My advice would be to maintain slower diverse funnels,

• hypercore.org -- a neutral place, company-agnostic, where the open protocol is documented, which mentions:
  • holepunch.to -- a company dedicated and experienced with P2P / hypercore
  • pears.com -- a tool which makes hypercore easy to use

This is just my few cents, but that way all projects can become a funnel for eachother, without redirects (because redirects allow the endusers to wonder what happend to the original project ).

Review the hypercore.org suggestion and the docs.holepunch.to and docs.pears.com links mentioned in the issue. Determine whether the project wants a neutral protocol site and how the existing branding should be presented. Done would require an agreed documentation and branding plan, but the issue does not define an implementation scope.