Unless you're actually a computer scientist following the area ... all claims of solving the "blockchain trilemma" - decentralisation, security and efficiency - should be ignored unless and until they have an implementation to show you, and it survives the hostile Internet.

Promises are cheap.

e.g. IOHK is behind Cardano/ADA, which has a marvellous white paper making all sorts of mathematical promises ... and still runs off a central node.

In this case, it appears to be a system for private blockchains, i.e. a system with central administration. All "consensus" algorithms in this case are variants on taking turns - further elaboration is security theatre, given that attacking the system to that extent would go well beyond the legal agreements to be allowed to participate in the first place.

Luckily I am a computer scientist however it is extremely hard to keep up with everything going on in the blockchain space.

There must be some validity behind the idea of weighted random turn-taking though since it is similar to how the next version(serenity) of ethereum will work based

I think the difference is how they choose whose turn it will be next. There's a big difference between a central authority picking people to take turns, and what Ethereum is working on.