Just some counter-arguments:

1. The scam cited cannot be blamed on Block.One, unless somebody can prove that they have anything to do with it. As the story stands, they have nothing to do with it, and it clearly hurt their reputation. This piece is one data point on how it hurt their reputation. Legally speaking, investors who fell for it who want to file a class action suit will have to find a good lawyer willing to take their case. I doubt any good lawyer would come forward to look like a fool.
2. Decentralization is good, but a good design has to use both decentralized and centralized principles in a balanced manner. Incentives matter more in most cases because you are dealing with humans (not just computers). Humans have emotions, and therefore do not always act rationally. In contrast computers are purely logical. However, digital computers have no capacity to recognize complex patterns. Totally decentralized systems like Bitcoin rely purely on logic, and it also has issues that are just starting to emerge.
3. Fixing the quantity of any currency makes it very volatile, and not useful as medium of exchange. Ethereum’s ethers used to have adjustable quantity also, but now that Vitalik thinks a fixed quantity is somehow better, its quantity will be fixed, and it will continue to be as volatile as Bitcoin. EOS, on the other hand, can adopt a good monetary policy to manage its quantity based on exchange rate. The EOS community has the choice to make its currency become a medium of exchange or not. You can read about stablecoins here: https://hackernoon.com/stablecoins-designing-a-price-stable-cryptocurrency-6bf24e2689e5