A vote geared towards taking a stance to achieve this goal was concluded on Nov 20, 2020. And though voters were primarily positive to a move like this, the amount of FUSE who partook in the vote was nowhere near the amount set as a requirement for the vote to count. This lack of participation is the main reason as to why governance has been changed from FUSE holders to FSN/FUSE holders, as it's expected that the latter will be much more actively participating in voting.

​

A similar vote will likely be made again under the new governance model and it will be very interesting how it plays out.

​

In a sense the vote is not merely about cross-chain presence, but also regarding what the market image should be for Fusionite (FUSE). 

​

Because when moved to other chains the token will be known as anyFUSE, which does not conflict with any other token called FUSE that may have launched on Ethereum (unluckily such a token has launched around the same time as FUSE launched on Fusion, and slight confusion of followers of that coin was noted when mentioning $FUSE on Twitter). $anyFUSE is certainly more freely available.

​

Regardless, this option is readily available to Fusionite, due to it's close relationship with AnySwap. So the question is more, is this wanted? And if it is wanted, is it wanted now, or is it better reserved for a later time? The reason it is worth considering to avoid, is that is quite strongly against the goal of FUSE being fused with FSN. Perhaps one way around that is to wait until AnySwap v2 to move FUSE cross-chain and setting up FUSE/FSN pools on every network, simply ignoring the native asset. Something such as that might even more strongly fuse FUSE and FSN, especially since at that time there will also be options of creating FUSE/ANY pools for example.

​

Regardless what options are taken, these types of decisions should exciting.

​

​

​

​

​