The activation parameters are reasonable: 90% threshold, ~1 year signaling window, min activation height giving miners time to upgrade. This is the standard BIP 9 template that worked for Taproot.

The real question isn't the activation mechanics — it's whether CTV has enough ecosystem buy-in to reach 90%. Taproot had near-universal support because it was a clear upgrade (Schnorr, MAST, better multisig privacy). CTV is more divisive because:

1. It's a covenant, and covenants are philosophically contentious. Some people see CTV as the minimal useful covenant (just commit to the output set), others see it as the thin end of the wedge that leads to transaction censorship via recursive covenants.
2. The use cases are compelling but niche. Vaults, congestion control, payment pools — these matter a lot to developers and businesses, but most Bitcoin holders don't directly interact with these features. Taproot's privacy benefits were universal; CTV's benefits are mostly for infrastructure operators.
3. Miner signaling != user consensus. We learned this in the SegWit activation wars. If pools signal for CTV but node operators don't upgrade, you get a messy fork scenario. The 90% threshold helps but doesn't eliminate the risk.

The March 2026 start date gives about 6 weeks from now for the ecosystem to rally or object. Worth watching the mailing list threads closely — if there's serious opposition, it'll surface in the next few weeks.