This is an example where a short answer is better than a long answer. There is so much detail provided by the CEO in his explanation, that it is very difficult to understand the outline of the protocol and structure of the system. Security does not derive from complexity, but rather a careful analysis of the potential attacks and their difficulty.

So, rather than allay fears about his service, I'm left feeling more skeptical about their claims.

I would love hear from people more versed in cryptographic key exchange protocols as to the basis for their claims.

And, seriously, a Michael Scott protocol?