Couple of months ago I was thinking to buy a delegation for a few weeks or so. Luckily I've made the math before so I avoided this mistake. I've also been playing with the voting bots for 2 weeks or so and used an Excel sheet to calculate the results only to find out that it's not worth it. It not only doesn't pay off but it's damaging the organic delegation. At the beginning there was at least the incentive to be visible in the Trending section. Now imagine you are watching a movie which is interrupted by ads every minute so you spend 95% of your time not watching a movie but ads. That's the Trending section today, so it's pointless to be present in "Trending" pretty much like it always was being in "Promoted".
To me the best way to support other artists and even the system itself is to stuck with organic delegation and to resteem good content. I believe this is the only way to grow the follower audience because it always is about humans interacting with our content, not bidbots. However, since many people believe they have to use them because everybody else does it, I have doubts that Steem will survive the consequences of the rise of bots. And especially when we see alternatives like EOS and ONO at the horizon it might be a good idea to power down to have money at hand to invest elsewhere and lookout for new networks that are more oriented towards meritocracy rather than plutocracy.
In another words: Don't buy delegation, don't sell delegation to bidbots, don't use bidbots, don't upvote content that has been already upvoted by bidbots, create best possible content, upvote and resteem good content, interact only with real people.
And yeah, I'm always amused to hear from people saying they are not here because of money! :-)
RE: Steemit - Unraveling the "Controversy"