Governance spam — is raising the deposit again the right fix?

While researching Hub governance for a university project, I noticed that a large share of recent proposals (1036–1046) were airdrop-scam spam, all rejected, and some legitimate proposals (like the IBC client recovery ones) failed quorum at the same time. The deposit was already raised from 250 to 500 ATOM in the past.
Do people here think raising the deposit again would help, or would it mostly hurt smaller legitimate proposers? Are there other anti-spam ideas being discussed (e.g. burning deposits more aggressively, or filtering at the wallet/explorer level)? Would love to understand how the community thinks about this trade-off between openness and spam resistance.