The network is restricted due to the need for the utilization of 'gas', and >has a maximum transaction cap of 30/transactions per second under >the current infrastructure.

Maximum transaction cap is being actively sorted out very publicly. The utilization of gas is simply a way to fund the processing work required to create a transaction. EOS does this by requiring you to stake tokens for a time to preserve state. To the end user it may seem “free” but the application developers (more accurately the token holders) foot the bill in the form of staking. That is making their wealth illiquid for a time.

the underlying network restrictions of the Ethereum network would not >be capable of supporting or maintaining mainstream adoption of the >platform.

There is no evidence to support this. Clearly it’s being adopted at a very high rate. It may be the case that certain business models don’t work as well in Ethereum as they will in EOS but it doesn’ t make Ethereum useless.

With the Ethereum platform could theoretically make changes to the >underlying protocol of Ethereum to be able to support the changes that >would be required in order to support higher transaction levels, the >likelihood that the network would be able to reach the level of >consensus that would be required would be extremely slim.

Consensus among developers or consensus among mining nodes? As I said, the Ethereum development team is heavily focused on transaction time. Although I’d agree there’s an issue with protocol governance, I’m sure the transaction time will be made competitive with EOS, bitshares, etc in time. The primary point behind this is the evolving work surrounding PoS, shards, plasma, raiden, and other transaction time reducing mechanisms.

and will be have the ability to make changes efficiently and fluidly if >problems should arise.

EOS relies on democracy to make these changes. Although not a firm critic of democracy, Ethereum also operates under a similar (yet less formal) method to introduce changes to the protocol and you criticize it for the same reasons you later laude EOS. Both networks must reach consensus to make changes. One of the issues with democracy is that the mob is not always right. If it were me, I'd prefer someone like Dan Larimer or Vitalek Buterin stay in "command" for a time to make sure things take a sense able course. Owning a cryptocurrency doesn't make you a good decision maker about how to develop it.

end users would be much less likely to use an application if they had to >pay to interact with the application.

This very much depends on the application. It’s a key difference but I’m not convinced it’s an improvement necessarily.

An application developer or business who utilizes the EOS platform will >not incur reoccurring network costs or fees from running their >application, but will rather just need to make sure that they have >sufficient funds in their staking account to entitle them to the amount of >network resources their application requires.

This, in fact, is the fee. Staking requires a rental/lease fee for stake/tokens or the purchase of stake/tokens. When you stake you lock your wealth away in an illiquid form. It’s almost like you’re funding an ICO. From the perspective of a stakeholder they’re making a bet that the network’s stake/token value will go up by more than 5% every year otherwise they losing money. EOS has a built in inflation mechanism that introduces up to 5% more tokens/stake every year into supply. I'm not saying it's not a good system. It's awesome, but there is no free lunch.

The aspect that stake in the platform entitles the holder to a >proportionate amount of the total network resources, will enable EOS >tokens to achieve an actual value as the platform gains adoption and >use cases. The lack of fees for launching and interacting with >applications residing on the EOS network will likely lead to more >application development than ever before, because of the limited >barriers to interacting with the network.

Value will come in the form of better and better block producers and the state of the protocol. If EOS is fast and efficient people will build applications for it. As technology gets faster each “stake” or share is predicted to grow in value because the amount of computing power it represents goes up. At the same time, it’s important to point out that there is a built-in up-to 5% inflation. That is your stake is also LOSING value because more tokens are minted every year to pay block producers and for community updates. EOS is an anti-speculative token because of this inflation. Although, value and adoption are likely to follow a hype curve and have ups and downs the point is to try to prevent too much volatility. That’s the real value. When you stake in EOS you can be sure you’ll get a certain quality of service for a meaningful amount of time. Cryptokiddies can’t come in and steal away your processing power.

In order for a business or developer to be able to justify the required >time and resources into developing an application on the platform, they >must have faith that the platform would actually be able to handle the >level of activity that they hope their application receives.

This might be the only place we completely agree. EOS is revolutionary, but so is Ethereum. They’re both useful for different reasons. The only reason I’m posting is to try to convince people that the case for who “wins” isn’t cut and dry. Because EOS and Ethereum are so fundamentally different it actually does more to create separate distinct markets for each environment. IE they’re not similar enough to compete directly. Some of Ethereum’s business will go to EOS when it comes out, but EOS is not the end all be all of crypto-turing operating systems.