Certainly interesting. Nice computer graphics but I am always left wondering how much more design effort has already gone into projects like this than these renderings. Then of course there is also the matter of gaining the substantial finance to do the required R&D, detailed design and certification work (etc, etc) to get such concepts into production.
The article has a few inconsistencies: It says "top rotor is pitch-controllable" but in same sentence "...it doesn't appear to be collective-controllable". It also mentions use of an electric motor to spin the rotor for take-off and landing and that traditional gyroplanes have unpowered rotors. However autogyros / gyrocopters have had an ability to spin up the rotor for years already, I am fairly sure back to the days of Cierva.
The bit that has me puzzled is the comment about "wings take over 90% of the lift duties, and the top rotor can be slowed right down. This reduces drag, and more or less eliminates the asymmetrical lift...". What does this actually mean? Are the retreating blades still advancing in relative terms to their local airflow?
Might be timely to watch this nicely produced mini-documentary on the Rotodyne:
They indicate the rotor of the Rotodyne still generated about half the lift in cruise, perhaps less in the case of the planned production Rotodyne (with its larger wingspan).