That successor ought to be Fossil, by all rights. What keeps me from using Fossil is its opinionated UI.
Lots of people hate git's UI, but it let's you do all sorts of workflows. You can rebase a lot, or merge a lot, or both. With Fossil you're pretty much stuck with a merge workflow.
What makes Fossil superior to all other VCSes is that internally it is a Merkle hash tree organized relationally, with an internal SQL interface. This makes a) development of tools much easier than for any other VCS, b) much easier to write new kinds of queries and make them perform well.
Perhaps some other VCS will come along that will do what Fossil does, but with a less opinionated UI.
I understand why Fossil is opinionated: it's not meant to be a VCS to take over the world, but instead just a VCS for SQLite3 and related projects. As such its developers don't really care for any functionality that they themselves don't care for, and thus my need for rebasing, and a staging area / index, is as nothing to them. I can't blame them, really, but it would be truly fantastic if we could support rebase workflows with Fossil.
Another thing I don't like about Fossil is its approach to repo sync. I like that with git I can push/fetch individual branches/tags, some of them, or all of them. With Fossil you don't get much choice, as it's all public branches or nothing.
Power users (and I'm not saying here that Fossil's aren't) need more UI power. To appeal more widely, a VCS as to support more power users.