That line is misleading, agreed.
It's not a bad system, and of course will depend on network effects so the more sites that join the network the better. But resolving the chicken and egg issue at the beginning is always the big problem.
Even if there are sites that have lots of traffic from google or facebook or twitter the number of users on the internet are NOT infinite.
From what I'm understanding, which the site doesn't do a very good job of explaining, is that participating users put a widget on their site that displays thumbnails and links to other similar sites. Almost like a... "Visit / Discover sites similar to this one" which has links that send my visitors to other websites that have the same "topic" as mine. Other participating sites similar to mine have the widget as well and visitors from there can discover my site.
How is it possible, without being a ponzi/pyramid scheme, that every time a user clicks on one of the links on the widget on my site, you're going to send 2 visitors back to mine? That would mean on the other sites' widgets you'd have to display a link to my site until 2 visitors click through to it so I can get my 2 visitors. That means the links on the widgets will need to change so that those 2 sites get 4 visitors sent back to them, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.... What if I send through 15 visitors, how on earth am I going to get 30 visitors back then the sites that sent me those 30 visitors get 60 visitors back then the sites that sent those 60 visitors get 120 visitors back, then 240, then 480, 960, 1,920, 3,840. And all of this is just from the domino effect of My ->1<- website. Imagine 700 or so participating sites.
Eventually you'll start getting into the billions and trillions of visitors needed to pay back all the sites for the traffic they sent in.
Even if you send back 10 visitors for every 9 sent, that's not sustainable. Even if some of those visitors count towards multiple sites.
I don't mean to call you out as a ponzi scheme but I just don't see how this is sustainable. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm usually bad at math.