Has there ever been any enforcement with this stuff? Take this, for example:
If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way.
I'm not sure it would be effective anyway. The problem with blacklisting is that ICO fundraising is short term. By the time a month has passed by, a lot of campaigns would be done or nearly done. Dodgy bounty managers can just reappear with alt accounts.
The only other suggestion I can think of, is something I've suggested before: only allow signature campaigns that pay in Bitcoin. The ones paying in made-up tokens have no real cost for the ICO, and thus don't mind "paying" for spam. If the campaign pays in Bitcoin, at least they have something to lose.
Good point. There's a world of difference between tokens printed out of thin air and bitcoins, in terms of advertising costs. It's really apparent when you compare token-paid bounties to BTC-paid campaigns.