This assumes the proposal to move to MATIC is confirmed by DAO vote.
Below are excerpts from the article found here: https://bit.ly/3qjybpA. Its contents cover all the proposals currently live.
Current FATE holders do not have to do anything, from a development perspective it is much easier.
With withdrawal fees, a more conservative, fixed rewards schedule, and the ability to essentially “re-issue” FATE as a new token offering on MATIC, the value of FATE on MATIC will depend more on demand because the supply can be controlled and sustainable.
Therefore the hope is that a major, upside-positive, repricing event is expected.
This can be accomplished, like other DAOs, by issuing a new token with a new name. The DAO is not a token-oriented, liquidity yield-farm scheme. Until FATE is securitized and the DAO has started to achieve its mission, it is not accurate to state a value for the DAO’s governance token. FATE allows members to contribute their capital and decentrally organize this in a way that allows fair participation, the creation of value by developing innovations, and allows members to gain from the blockchain/crypto/digital asset tokenization revolution, collectively, as a fintech enterprise organization.
This will allow existing FATE holders (on Harmony) to receive a percentage of the new FATE on MATIC that should have more value than it did on Harmony, in a way that is the most convenient.
It increases the desirability of the FATE token on Harmony since the pre-issued MATIC FATE to be allocated to FATE Harmony holders will be based on the percent of Harmony FATE held by a member at the time of ending Harmony FATE rewards/emissions, and not a 1:1 transfer.
A new tokenomics framework and rewards schedule will also need to be proposed, of which the FATE Harmony holders allocation details will be an important component.
Since this decision will help existing and new members decide what to do with FATE on Harmony (i.e. buy more to increase the percent of FATE MATIC a member will receive) and has been discussed/and publicized "unofficially" for the last few weeks we are keeping the length of the proposals voting period to 72 hours(2x the minimum).