Internet Protocol version 10 (IPv10) Specification

The name is funny (IPv4 + IPv6 == IPv10), but the actual proposal looks strange (one more packet format to battle incompatibility between packet formats).

Is it a normal proposal that have balanced pros and cons or just a minimally viable document to make fun of "IPv10" with a serious face?

If serious, please describle it in a "tl;dr" fashion. Why this and not another   transition technology like nat64/teredo?

As Ron said, anyone can write a proposal. I have a hard time taking proposals seriously from someone who suggests interconnecting satellites with optical fiber, though.
Also, I can't imagine this actual proposal gaining any momentum, especially due to this note:

All Internet connected hosts must be IPv10 hosts to be able to
communicate regardless the used IP version, and the IPv10 deployment
process can be accomplished by ALL technology companies developing OSs
for hosts networking and security devices.

So, to solve the problem of IPv4-only hosts not being able to talk to IPv6-only hosts (and vice versa) you need to implement another protocol: IPv10. Then, why bother with that and not just implement IPv6 on that IPv4-only host and be done with it.
In addition, as can be read in RFC7059, there are already more than enough tunnel mechanisms available which can be used to solve parts of this problem.
To be honest, I think the author is hoping on some commercial success by claiming copyright, as can be read in these tweets:

ANNOUNCEMENT: Protecting the Copyright, The #IPv10 and KHALED Routing Protocol (#KRP or #RRP) are developed by @The_Road_Series CEO.


They MUST NOT be represented or published by any organization without approval from their developer @Eng_Khaled_Omar


Today 26th of May, 2017, a 2nd request was sent to the ietf for removing #IPv10 #KRP (#RRP) drafts from their repository.

