First, the bad news.
"Superfluid vacuum theory", despite having its own wikipedia page, is not a common or standard term in physics. Ultimately it seems to refer only to the theory espoused in a thoroughly obscure paper from 2009, one which proposed that the origin of mass is something other than the Higgs mechanism (the Higgs boson was observed three years later) and which predicts deviations from special relativity at high energies (no such deviations have been observed, even at the very highest energies).
I am not aware of any sense in which laboratory superfluids, whether liquid helium or otherwise, satisfy the holographic principle.
You mention superfluid droplets "propelled by pilot waves on their surface" that exhibit quantum properties.
The pilot wave is an idea from the beginning of quantum mechanics, according to which particles are guided by waves. In recent years, Brady and Anderson got some press by asserting that experiments in which droplets are guided by waves, show that quantum mechanics might be explained in this way. But it has been known for many decades that a truly quantum pilot wave (as in Bohm's formulation of quantum mechanics), that guides more than one particle, cannot correspond to a single wave in three-dimensional space. So Brady and Anderson are necessarily on the wrong track.
Meanwhile, superfluids and their properties are actually a consequence of quantum mechanics. Aiming to explain quantum mechanics as a result of superfluids is circular, unless one has an independent non-quantum account of what a superfluid is.
It's hard to see how the accelerating expansion of the universe corresponds to any behavior of a superfluid. Superfluids don't expand forever and they don't speed up as they do so. (Unless the idea is that the accelerating expansion is holographically dual to, maybe, some kind of Bose condensation??)
So there are a lot of ingredients to your understanding that don't add up. I would be curious to know if you got all of this from one place, or if you have assembled it yourself from a variety of sources. Either way, there is a lot of hype and misinformation out there, and you are hardly to be blamed for falling for it.
Meanwhile - superfluids are real (and dark matter might be a superfluid); the quantum vacuum contains, not superfluids, but various other "condensates"; quantum black holes are generally expected to have an entropy and a temperature; and there are many mathematical examples in which a dimension of space "emerges" from quantum entanglement.
So there are many phenomena and theories which are in the direction of what interests you, but which are better attested or more robust.
Concerning your actual question(s)... Given that emergence of macroscopic space-time "from quantum mechanics" is a serious topic now, it is absolutely possible that the big bang was just a phase transition out of some other quantum regime. But I can't think of any really good work which gets into the specifics of that. There are lots of relatively amateur papers, in which e.g. one has quantum algebraic expressions, and then one considers a "large N" limit, and this limit is said to resemble ordinary space-time. And there are more sophisticated papers (mostly I mean, papers by string theorists) in which similar but more advanced exercises are carried out, but it's still hard to find the physical meaning behind the mathematics.
With respect to your actual proposal - "some form of phase change whereby our laws of physics and reality itself essentially condensed into existence as a zero viscosity holographic superfluid the surface of which all information is represented on" - I have trouble seeing how the concept of a "viscous superfluid" has meaning independent of space-time.
Especially since holography generally involves the emergence of an extra dimension, it sounds as if you are starting with more than zero dimensions of space, and then an extra dimension is emerging. There is an old proposal called "dS/CFT", one version of which says that our universe evolving in time is holographically dual to a timeless space of just three dimensions. Maybe there's a version of dS/CFT in which the timeless dual is a "viscous superfluid" at the end of time, but, I'd want to see the mathematical argument for that. :-)