The price of publication is very low, which is a good thing (publication costs in big journals are insanely high nowadays). Here's hoping the business plan can hold.

The idea of having reviewers discuss a paper collegially is intriguing, although I expect it might slow down the evaluation process (since reviewers first have to review the paper on their own, then consider what other reviewers have said). What I like about the idea, though, is that sometimes a second opinion gives one new ideas and could prompt even more criticism, thus making the reviewing process more efficient.

Voting on whether a paper is accepted sounds fair on the face of it, but I'm not sure it's the way to go. At the end of the day, a vote is just a tally of "ayes" and "nays" and does not reflect the relative weight of the points that let people vote one way or the other. The current peer-review process is pretty democratic already, but the editor retains the right to weigh in if he or she thinks that the paper is really on to something interesting, or that the harsh criticism of reviewer #3 (it's always reviewer #3) does not warrant refusal.

The one aspect of the strategy I am wary of is this : "You can see all the reviewers’ feedback, their names, and what percentage voted to approve the article for publication."

Losing anonymity would have on criticism a dangerous moderating effect: people might have to refrain from expressing their true opinions. It's not that reviewers habitually call a paper's authors bad names, but how is someone going to turn down a paper by someone very influential in one's own field, knowing that there might be repercussions? What about currying favour from a Big Shot in one's domain by accepting all his papers? Apart from the obviously sunny "we have nothing to hide" attitude, I don't see what this point brings to the table. I'm fairly sure that some of my (rejected) papers were reviewed by friends, and I'm glad that they didn't fear to hurt my feelings when criticizing the science.

All that being said, there is nothing wrong with new models of publication. For example, I quite like the BioarXiv model, where unreviewed papers are made available to public criticism before experts can sink their teeth into them. It's a nice complement to what we did in the past. (Publication of negative results is also a pretty good idea).