So there is this thing called the scalability trilemma. It says that there is an inherent tradeoff between the three defining properties a blockchain has: distributed block production, safety, scalability.
EOS is a dPoS blockchain which sacrifices much of it's distributed block production properties (decentralization) for its scalability (which is high). So we have a blockchain which has only 21 block producing nodes but has high vertical scalability. This as a root blockchain for various ecosystem which attach to it like Plasma subchains, state channels, decentralized supercomputers (golem), stablecoins (maker) and things like Loom doesn't make much sense. It's a weak foundation because we might see cartels and plutocracy like structures evolve around those 21 block producing entities. Those unfavorable structures directly affect every ecosystem on top.
But you can use the EOS consensus and security model inside a plasma chain or loom chains, so u get the scalability without sacrificing decentralization. When Plasma-like system become fraudulent we just exit it through the Ethereum main chain.
My point is: the deeper we go into the blockchain stack the more important things like censorship resistance and cartel resistance becomes. We should trade decentralization for scalabilty on higher level subchains but we should absolutely not do that at the foundational layer. With Plasma like systems we can make the decentralization properties available to ecosystems that attach to it (for exactly that reason!)
Tl;dr: EOS like systems which sacrifice decentralization for scalability don't make much sense as a bottom layer blockchain but are perfect for achieving scalability in higher level subsystems like Plasma, Loom etc. Subsystems inherit decentralization properties with Plasma like systems through an exit mechanism and can comfortably trade scalability for decentralization. EOS dPoS as consensus for Plasma rocks.