That's a good overall assessment.
Everyone buys-in(a house seat). The funds are collected and put into a house fund. This fund can only be used if the majority of the house votes to access it. The more you invest the more coins you will get. The more coins you have the more voting power you have(with a maximum rule of 10%).
In the hypothetical assumption that the house decides to buy a "KNC ASIC Miner" shares will be allocated based on coin ownership. So the more coins you have the more profits from the "asic miner" you will get. This also transfers over to a hypothetical business venture. The more coins you have the more profits from that venture you will receive. This system incentivises the more active users. Active users will rise to the top and have more clout/power on how the houses' "funds" will be used.
Whenever there are decisions to be made. A house member will create a poll and get preliminary feedback on the raised proposition. If it goes to the final vote "house of polls" and it's not unanimous, a [HOC] address will need to be present along with a vote. Now an accurate vote count can be calculated(using a block-explorer to prove coin ownership percentages).
I haven't invested in this yet the main reason is that the house will likely end up as a collection of people who have simply invested btc. What the house needs to have in order to be effective is to have a number skilled people, business people, programmers, developers etc - Would it be possible to allocate a few seats as 'to be decided' in order to invite skilled people to join at a later date, people who would be an asset to the project - these people would be relevant to the business path the house decides to follow.?