# \[PROPOSAL\] Increasing Governance Agility: Reducing the Veto Period to 10 Days **URL:** \ **Category:** 🔬 DAO Proposals\ **Created:** [January 28, 2026, 5:21am UTC](https://community.taiko.xyz/t/proposal-increasing-governance-agility-reducing-the-veto-period-to-10-days/3900 "2026-01-28T05:21:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![odesium](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/community.taiko.xyz/odesium/32/735_2.png) [@odesium](https://community.taiko.xyz/u/odesium)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2026, 5:21am UTC](https://community.taiko.xyz/t/proposal-increasing-governance-agility-reducing-the-veto-period-to-10-days/3900/1 "2026-01-28T05:21:33Z")
**TL;DR:** The Security Council is proposing to reduce the on-chain veto period for Taiko DAO proposals from **21 days to 10 days**. The 7-day timelock will remain unchanged. This change cuts the total governance cycle from 28 to 17 days, a **40% reduction** , enabling faster protocol evolution while maintaining our strong security model. An on-chain proposal for this change is planned for submission on Monday. * * * #### **1. The Proposal: A Faster, More Responsive Governance Cycle** Taiko’s unique veto-based governance was designed to be efficient, allowing for decisive action while providing a powerful community check. However, the current 21-day veto period has become a bottleneck. **We propose a simple parameter update:** - **Change:** Veto Period: **21 days → 10 days** - **Keep:** Timelock: **7 days** (unchanged) - **Result:** Total cycle: **28 days → 17 days** This change is about aligning our processes with the reality of how veto governance works and the pace of innovation in the blockchain space. #### **2. Core Rationale: Why a Shorter Veto Period Makes Sense for Taiko** The key is understanding the fundamental difference between governance models: - **Approval-Based Voting (used by many DAOs):** Proposals need active “yes” votes to pass and must reach a quorum. Longer periods help gather participation. - **Veto-Based Voting (Taiko’s model):** Proposals pass **unless** actively vetoed. There is no quorum to meet. The period is solely about providing a sufficient window for the community to _object_. A 21-day window is designed for the first model, not the second. In a veto system, if a proposal is problematic, community discussion and opposition typically surface within **hours or days** , not weeks. A 10-day window provides ample time for scrutiny, especially when combined with our existing safeguards: 1. **Pre-Submission Review:** All on-chain proposals are submitted by the Security Council after internal review and discussion. 2. **The 7-Day Timelock is the Critical Safety Net:** This period _after_ a proposal passes but _before_ execution is the dedicated window for users who disagree with the action to exit. This timelock alone satisfies Stage 1 security requirements for exit mechanisms. **In essence: 10 days is enough time to object; 7 days is enough time to exit. Together, they provide robust protection without unnecessary delay.** #### **3. The Benefits of a 17-Day Governance Cycle** - **Faster Protocol Upgrades:** We can respond more quickly to community feedback, implement improvements, and adjust parameters. For example, beneficial changes like fee reductions or new feature integrations won’t be delayed by a month-long process. - **Improved Competitiveness:** The blockchain ecosystem moves quickly. A shorter cycle allows Taiko to adapt, partner, and ship at a pace that matches industry demands and user expectations. - **Reduced Governance Fatigue:** Extremely long voting periods can lead to disengagement. A more focused 10-day window encourages timely review and decision-making. #### **4. Addressing Security & Practical Concerns** - **“Won’t people miss the proposal?”** Proposals are announced across multiple channels (Discord, Forum, Governance Dashboard). A 10-day period, spanning at least one weekend, is standard and sufficient for major protocols (e.g., Aave, Compound have 3-5 day review periods). Delegating voting power is also always an option for token holders. - **“What about complex technical proposals?”** Technical review is intensive and occurs **before** the proposal ever reaches the on-chain stage via the Security Council process. The on-chain veto period is a final community check, not the primary technical review phase. - **“Are we compromising on security?”** No. The security model is unchanged: community veto power + a 7-day execution timelock. We are simply right-sizing the first component to match its purpose. #### **5. Pathway to Implementation** 1. **Community Discussion (Now):** This forum post serves to socialize the proposal and gather community feedback. 2. **On-Chain Proposal (Target: Monday):** A formal proposal will be submitted to the Taiko DAO for execution. Proposal will be found [here](https://dao.taiko.xyz/plugins/community-proposals/) when it is live. 3. **Governance Vote:** The community will have the veto period (initially still 21 days) to decide on this change. 4. **Parameter Update:** If passed, the governance parameter will be updated, and the new 10-day veto period will take effect for subsequent proposals. #### **6. Conclusion** This proposal is about unlocking Taiko’s ability to execute and evolve with greater agility. It respects the original intent of our veto-based governance, efficiency with oversight, by removing an artificial constraint. We believe this change will make Taiko more dynamic and responsive as we continue to grow. **The Security Council has reviewed and supports this proposal.** We now open the floor for community questions and discussion below.