It's worth no VP.
Mechnically the idea is that the VPs are hidden; you gotta "crack the card open" to get at the 1VP.
You mean, like Hunting Grounds?
So because Hunting Grounds makes no thematic sense I should strive to do the same? 
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Hunting Grounds is not a Victory card because it is not worth VP. It's called Hunting Grounds because it "contains" VP. Your card is not worth VP. It contains VP. It's like Hunting Grounds.
That is plain nonsense. If you prefer unthematic cards and narrowly stick to the paradigm of official cards that is your prerogative but it hardly constitutes a sensible argument. If my card has real issues I am all ears. But being a Victory card is a key feature and not a liability.
You are adding a type for no reason beyond flavour, at the price of making your card either ugly (if you stick to the usual practice of adding a dividing line) or inconsistent with the game's rules (in case you don't), and overly complicated in either case. With your reasoning Golem should be an Attack card because the name sounds like an attack. It's not for the simple reason that types are a mechanical game component, and serve a purpose. If you throw around types for artistic reasons, you are misusing them.
Also, i really don't feel like giving any more feedback on your ideas. I thought you had changed your stance on this, but it appears you are still rather confrontational when one of your ideas is critizised.
