Are you mean terminating signature campaign is the best solution ?
Sig campaigns aren't all bad. They increase traffic to the forum, give people incentive to participate, reward posters, introduce people to bitcoin, give them an easy way to try it out for themselves without having to buy them outright, stimulates the economy/businesses, etc.
But it introduces a lot of problems as well. It's basically a balancing act, and right now it's balanced in favor of the spammers, and the forum is suffering for it.
I don't think ending them completely is the best solution, no. I think the ability to ignore signatures will do a lot. I know someone is going to say "STUPIDBEAR THE SPAM IS THE PROBLEM NOT THE SIGS", but bear with me here. I'm thinking long term.
But wouldn't that result in a dramatic reduction of the payout? Because the campaign company would be getting less views.
yes.
I am not sure this would be effective in reducing spam, it could even make it worse as companies would pay less so the people who are willing to try to earn via signature spamming will either need to work harder (spam more) or would be willing to accept less. I would say that generally people who are willing to accept low payments will probably generally spam more.
I do agree with your point that people should not be forced to view ads although it is currently setup so that only heros+ can disable forum ads.
I think a good solution would be to have a second tier of a ban when someone is banned for insubstantial posts + paid signature (aka signature spam). One could be banned for 14 days from posting/sending PMs and then once that ban expires, for a person to be unable to display their own signature (they can't participate in signature campaigns).
It would probably also not be a bad idea to disable displaying a signature when the ban starts as well so that when a person is banned they will likely be denied payment from their campaign because their signature is removed. This would cause people to be more careful about getting banned because it would mean they won't get paid for their "work" verses they just can't post now and would likely appear as though they just went on vacation.
Well the point isn't to reduce spam, it's that I (and other's I'm sure) are sick of seeing the same ads over and over again. I would love to not have to see them anymore without turning off signatures entirely. Right now it's all or nothing. Should be all, no ads, or nothing.
I do see what you're getting at in that less pay=more spam as people try to make up for it, but more spam would just make them easier to catch.
As it is, the signature campaigns just get the most garish ads they can find, throw money at it, and ignore spammers because they know people don't really have a choice. If people have the ability to turn off the ads, then they would have to work smarter. Have ads that are pleasing and not too distracting, have good posters in their campaign, and to not go overboard with how many users you have with it, and have a good rapport with the users of the forum (if you see the same ad 20x in a row on the same page you are much more likely to block it, especially if it's loud and annoying). Giving people a choice would add consequences, and would be much closer to a true free market than the way it currently is. And eventually maybe a middle ground is found. 
