[Discussion] Reducing the governance voting period


Being a validator on multiple chains, I have noticed that Cosmos Hub has quite a big voting period of 14 days. In my opinion, that kinda of makes it more slow and sluggish, especially when it comes to chain upgrades - usually getting from the “forum discussion” stage to “upgrade applied” stage takes around a month, partially because of 14 days voting period.

We have chains in Cosmos ecosystem where the voting period is quite small (like 2 days) or some with really bigger voting period (like 14 days), and I think reducing it to something between these (in my opinion, 7 days sounds pretty reasonable) would make the governance more agile, as in, we’ll need to wait less till the proposal gets applied.

There are a few downsides though (I’ll also put my thoughts on why this might not be a problem):

  • validators/delegators not noticing proposal in time and not being able to vote - seeing examples from different chains it should not be a problem, as there’s always quorum for upgrades
  • validators/delegators not being able to think over the proposal before voting - we have a pre-voting governance discussions on this forum, which allows everybody to participate and know about details and shape proposals before they are even submitted.

Generally this post isn’t designed as a proposal (at least yet), I am just curious about others’ opinions on a subject and want to gather some thoughts on whether this would improve the governance process, or make it worse.

What do you all think?


I don’t mind, but for governance discussions with respect to big proposal we should request teams to keep it on forums longer (or have signaling proposals).



overall agreed,

my two cents:

some kind of proposals would need more than 7 days

vote switching should be prohibited (completely or in the X last days)

Agree, but this goes out of the scope of on-chain governance, so it makes sense to discuss it separately, what do you think?

1 Like

I remember during one validators retro, that happened after the emergency Cosmos Hub upgrade, we were discussing the introduction of something like expedited proposals on Osmosis (if you don’t know, you can submit a proposal and pay more deposit, but the proposal’s voting period would be decreased), sounds like it partially resolves this. But this would require a chain upgrade and way more effort than just changing an on-chain param.

On vote switching, can you elaborate?

1 Like

I don’t think 7 days is enough time for a full and in depth discussion, particularly for more complicated proposals. Also, I agree that the shortened voting period would likely mean some validators would miss votes.

As an aside, why is vote switching allowed?

Agree with lowering down to 5-7 days. If Cosmos governance can’t handle that, we need to rethink how good the governance system of the hub is.


The idea of getting rid of vote switching sounds nice, but people should be allowed to change their opinions based on new information presented.

“Well that information should have been present before going on chain!”


Like it or not, there are probably 50 people in total that actually read or care about governance forums. Nothing is truly discussed until it is on chain and there is an uproar on a more public stage like Twitter for debate.


My 2 cents - increase it. Some chains have props to increase certain voting to… 1 year - IMO not fantastic, but i follow the logic. Humans evaluate things. Humans take time to understand, to explain, to do A/B testing when required.

A proposal voting period should take as long as all of the citizens in question had the time to check the prop, understand it, vote on it if needed, voice themselves if needed. Not less.

1 Like

agree we should be able to switch, even if in a perfect world that makes no sense.

but not until the end of the vote period.

we also need to find ways to avoid bribes’/last minute massive delegations’ in a way or another.
forbid vote switching in the last days could partly helps.

(hope this answer your question @freak12techno, sorry it’s a little bit out of the scope)

1 Like

That would require for a lot of time to pass before each of the chain upgrades. Additionally, real-life votings tend to have small durations, like 1-3 days for example. IMO it’s better to have a smaller voting period, and make a few proposals (for example, adding something new, then evaluating if it adds value and does not harm the ecosystem, and then removing it with another proposal if that is not working), this would make it more agile. What do you think?

Real life voting is not 3 days. In real life a voting process (including preparations) can take years. Just think about the time politicians run pre-election companies. All this constitutes for the process.

The fact that in some places the actual voting process lasts 3 days - does NOT mean thats a good thing. Its an awful and a terrible idea IMO. Humans take time to grow, study, etc. I do however agree with you, that the upgrade thing is very very different and requires swift actions.

IMO, the current state of governance is literally training wheels for what it will look like in 10-15 years. I think that proposals should be divided into categories. 1 such category - upgrades, should be separated from others.

Agreed, the Hub needs more social engagement. And while there are several initiatives to enhance voting, e.g. from keplr and leapwallet, it still has a big gap, so currently it’s not appropriate IMO.

1 Like

I actually like the long voting period since it gives non-daily users a chance to evaluate and vote proposals.

If there is a need for shorter voting times then i would prefer expedited proposals like we have them on osmosis


With respect for all our community members I think we should approved this proposals. The idea of making is great and sensing looked.

One of the worst ideas ever that will backfire sooner or later like a boomerang

1 Like

I agree with you.

Polkadot goes for a month and it allows more discussion.

1 Like