Interesting, very interesting. It could work  and they fix key problems with the ten point system.  However I feel that a more effective way of scoring would be to chuck out the point limits.  For example if you put a ten point limit on the amount the fighters can receive, and one fighter takes the back and mount, and started with a take down to side control thats 8 points, then ad the points for dominating the opponent or effective striking and you should have more than ten.  However with that limit the fighter will receive only ten points instead of the 11-?? he deserves, as well as restricting the lead in points he can gain.  If a round gets scored 10-8 thats only a two point difference and the fighter could get dominated by the other and merely survive the round but still get 8 points that he did not deserve.  So you should chuck the limits out the window and score exactly how the round went by the standards they set.  Take down to side control 2 pts., Takedown to guard 1 point etc.  So you could end up with a round scored 15-3 or a fight scored 45-15 and this will be a much better representation of the fighters actual performance than 30-24.  Because if one fighter totally dominates the other and the round is scored 10-8 and then the other fighter comes back but does not dominate nearly as much as the other fighter last round, and the round gets scored 10-8, this is not an accurate representation of the fighters performance.

This is a legitimate problem, I think that any scoring system will have some sort of issue. Another alternative is that scoring be thrown altogether, and the fight be called by a doctor who examines the damage to each fighter at the end, and pronounces the fighter with the least damage taken the winner.  Or just simply have as many rounds as it takes to finish a fight with a tko, ko, or submission.  However while this would mean more entertaining fights I believe the amount of injury would skyrocket.