Polygon’s co-founder Sandeep Nailwal has sparked fresh debate over the project’s token identity, raising the possibility of bringing back the original MATIC ticker after months of community pushback.
Key Takeaways
- Sandeep Nailwal is openly considering reverting the POL token ticker back to MATIC due to widespread community confusion and sentiment.
- POL was introduced in September 2024 as part of the Polygon 2.0 upgrade to expand token utility beyond staking and gas.
- Community members report struggles identifying POL, leading to branding challenges and weaker market recognition.
- POL trades nearly 89 percent below its all-time high, intensifying frustration among users and raising questions about the rebrand’s effectiveness.
What Happened?
Polygon transitioned from the MATIC to POL token in September 2024 as part of a broader ecosystem upgrade under its 2.0 roadmap. While the move was framed as a technical improvement, many users never fully adapted to the new ticker. This growing disconnection prompted Nailwal to revisit the idea of reversing the change in response to mounting community pressure.
Thought Experiment:
— Sandeep | CEO, Polygon Foundation (※,※) (@sandeepnailwal) November 25, 2025
Time and again, I keep hearing from folks in the Polygon trading community that MATIC was a far stronger and more familiar ticker — it had history, recognition, and stuck in people’s minds.
So here’s an honest question: should we ask exchanges to revert just…
MATIC’s Legacy vs POL’s New Features
The original MATIC token had established deep brand recognition among both seasoned crypto users and newcomers. It was widely recognized and frequently searched, even among merchants and traders outside core crypto circles. In contrast, POL, despite offering enhanced capabilities, has struggled to achieve the same visibility.
- POL enables holders to earn income through expanded roles, such as contributing to data availability and sequencer decentralization.
- MATIC, though technically limited compared to POL, maintained a stronger psychological connection with the user base.
According to Nailwal, confusion around the ticker transition is not limited to technical novices. Even regular traders and crypto community members have expressed difficulty locating and identifying POL in their wallets and exchange accounts.
Community Divided Over Branding Future
Nailwal recently posted on X describing the potential return to MATIC as a “thought experiment” triggered by repeated feedback. Although he personally leans toward keeping POL, the volume of requests has made it impossible to ignore.
User reactions to the proposal fall into three clear groups:
- The “Pro-MATIC” camp argues that brand familiarity boosts adoption, especially in emerging markets where MATIC was widely known.
- The “Stick with POL” group believes that changing back would signal instability and detract from the progress Polygon has made.
- A smaller segment proposes a third option, such as adopting a completely new ticker like PGON to eliminate confusion without appearing to backpedal.
Despite these debates, Polygon has not yet outlined any formal process for a decision. No vote, timeline, or mechanism has been announced, indicating that the conversation remains in an exploratory phase.
Price Slump Adds to Ticker Tension
Fueling the debate is POL’s underwhelming market performance. The token, which peaked at $1.29 in March 2024, currently trades around $0.13, marking an 89 percent decline. This steep drop has intensified concerns about whether the branding shift contributed to weaker visibility and investor confidence.
Many users feel that a well-known ticker like MATIC could help drive renewed interest as the market looks for clearer narratives and recognizable assets.
CoinLaw’s Takeaway
I’ve seen time and again how important branding is in crypto. It is not just about utility. A token’s name can make or break its market identity. In my experience, changes that appear small on the technical side can massively impact user trust and adoption. POL might be a better token on paper, but if people can’t find it or connect with it, that’s a problem. MATIC had mindshare, and that’s something you cannot easily replace. If enough users are asking for it, I think reverting makes strategic sense, especially if it helps Polygon build back momentum.
