1. For campaign management, the user would have to be a proven member with a certain minimum amount of time spent on the forum. Beginner managers, most often do not know some basic norms of behavior on the forum and problems with campaigns mostly come from there. It also says a lot about the owner of the campaign, who hires cheap beginners, obviously entering the whole thing without initial capital and not paying attention to quality.

2. There is always a problem with projects that pay rewards in their tokens, and there are several critical points. for example, the Token is often worthless, or the team can lock any token transfer, which means that the escrow is useless. Also, bounty campaigns often start long before the launch of tokens, so it's all a matter of "trust"

3. I don't see solving any problem by tagging bounty hunters, because we have seen countless cases of account farms and it happens again and again, regardless of the fight against it. Here we return to the policy of the manager and the quality of his selection of participants.

4. Perhaps we could lead some kind of campaign ranking, where the evaluation would directly depend on the way of solving things like the ones you mentioned. But this can be tiring, as spam campaigns appear daily.

5. Certainly, presenting information and earlier recognition of potentially risky "projects" and their bounties is a good practice in terms of prevention. Unfortunately, with bounty hunters haunting all campaigns, this is difficult to do.
No matter how bad a campaign is, it always has its promoters.