I wouldn't mind if the initial Merit drops by 1 point per month, but that would instantly create a sales market for Merit. A month later, the sales price would probably go up.
As an alternative: I would love to see more shitposters banned! Merit has closed the flood gates, now it's time to start mopping the floor. Each banned account used to be replaced by 10 new ones, but that won't happen anymore. Once gone, nothing will grow back in it's place!
I guess it might be better if mods had the power to disable signatures for everybody who received less than 1 merit in the last month... That way the mod could use his own judgement wether or not the person in question is a spammer, or just a very low volume poster that just didn't receive any merits because of their low post frequency.
Why should Mods demerit them, if they can ban them directly?
Is there any chance for all managers to gather and discuss a standard of merit requirement for the campaign they handle? In my opinion this is an interesting to do because managers can be served as spammer controller and this would be a great addition to the SMAS.
From my limited experience as a signature campaign manager: the quality of posters largely depends on the available budget. A campaign manager can only select the best possible posters if he has the highest budget at his disposal.