Steemit is an incentivized market, which is why so many people are watching it with interest - some hoping it will succeed wildly (because look, market forces work!) and some hoping it will crash and burn (because people suck and need to be centrally regulated).
I don't know if it will succeed or fail (though I have a suspicion), but what I have noticed in my brief time working on this platform is that it's a kinder environment, and more civil than Facebook.
My Facebook friends are mostly political and philosophical debaters, and they (we) spend a lot of time posting opinions and crafting passionate, well-researched arguments. If your own wall isn't big enough, you can start a Page and gain followers. I was one of several admins of the Laissez-Faire Capitalism page on Facebook for many years, and that page's following grew exponentially for a while. Lately, though, it's leveled off. Some think that's because of the limiting algorithms Facebook implemented to downshift page reach (as a way to monetize Facebook), and I'm sure that plays a part. But I think its popularity leveled off mainly because of complacency on the part of the admins. One admin was almost always admonishing another to narrow the focus of what got posted, and to post things that would actually interest the page's followers. This was a consistent problem the page had, and that's because Facebook lacks two things that Steemit has: direct incentives and a reputation metric.
There are some indirect incentives on Facebook - a person can "unlike" or "unfriend" you if the value of your posts lessen. But that feedback comes in one-at-a-time. The subjective value of one individual is always important, but it's not a trend. And it's not an incentive a page owner feels as directly as a reputation metric that does reflect trends. A measure of "reputation" based on the aggregate esteem your community affords you gives direct incentivizing feedback - a snapshot at any given moment of the level of trust and confidence your community has given in response to your product and behavior in that community.
Because it lacks these two things, Facebook also lacks a consistent level of civility. Facebookers don't try to teach and share as much as they simply argue and debate. That's because, at the end of the day, nobody's actually buying what you're selling on Facebook. Posters tend to post what they want to say, as opposed to what their audience might be willing to hear.
On Steemit, people are actually buying what you're selling. That changes everything. It's no longer just about a writer's fierce opinion... it's now about how a writer can persuade by helping, teaching, and sharing information with others. This subtle difference makes Steemit a kinder, more peaceful place. On Facebook, people will try to outclass their ideological opponents, speaking in jargon, or belittling their opponents to "win" - to be the smarter, bigger, louder, better debater. On Steemit, people are trying to share new ideas with someone who may not agree by breaking those ideas down for them, sharing a passion for an idea rather than beating someone over the head with it. Why? Because there are incentives beyond just persuasion. There's a potential for feedback, in steem power/dollars and in reputation levels. When you're trying to earn someone's upvote you provide more value and less attitude. Civility starts to matter.
I'm not the only one who's noticing this feature. 
To make the world a better place, we need to learn that incentives matter. It's nice to see this truth finally have a platform to play out.