From MATIC To POL And Back? Polygon Founder Asks Users If Original Token Name Should Return

Polygon Debates A Return To MATIC As Users Struggle With POL Identity

Polygon’s long-planned shift from MATIC to POL was meant to represent its next stage of technical growth.

Yet the new ticker has unexpectedly become a source of confusion, prompting co-founder Sandeep Nailwal to ask whether the network should consider reverting to the name that first made it familiar to millions.

What began as a “thought experiment” quickly turned into a lively debate across X, as users questioned whether the rebrand had unintentionally weakened Polygon’s visibility among everyday traders.

Retail Confusion Drives The Conversation

Nailwal admitted that while he personally favours sticking with POL, he cannot ignore repeated feedback from users who say the original ticker was easier to recognise.

He pointed to anecdotes that keep resurfacing:

“the guy in the Philippines running a sari-sari store, or an Uber driver in Dubai, knew MATIC… and now he has no idea where it went.”

That gap in familiarity is what pushed him to open the discussion publicly.

He wrote,

“I’m genuinely curious what the broader community thinks, because this feedback keeps coming up.”

The conversation revealed two camps.

Some traders argue that tickers are cosmetic compared with the fundamentals of the technology.

Others insist that retail awareness shapes how a token performs in the market, and abandoning a well-known name can weaken accessibility.

How The Migration To POL Began

Polygon upgraded its network token on 4 September 2024 as part of its wider Polygon 2.0 roadmap.

The shift aimed to move beyond MATIC’s limitations and position POL as a token that could secure multiple chains, participate across Polygon’s ecosystem, and generate fees from roles beyond gas and staking.

Unlike MATIC, POL also supports revenue sources tied to data availability, sequencer decentralisation and validation across various chains.

The upgrade was technically successful, with Polygon confirming that 99% of MATIC had been converted to POL since launch.

Most Polygon users on-chain experienced an automatic conversion, while Ethereum holders needed to migrate manually.

Major exchanges supported the switch by updating balances without user intervention.

Despite this, the market performance has been less encouraging.

CoinGecko data shows that Polygon’s token traded at $1.29 on 13 March 2024 but now sits around $0.13 — an 89% drop from its all-time high.

For some observers, the lack of brand familiarity among retail audiences is one factor in weak activity.

Does MATIC Still Hold More Weight Than POL?

The name MATIC carries years of history.

Polygon was originally launched as Matic Network in 2017, later rebranding to Polygon in 2021 but keeping the MATIC ticker because of its strong market recognition.

Early adopters and retail traders still associate the project with MATIC, a point raised by X user Mo Ezeldin:

“We haven’t really seen a new wave of retail entrants into the markets, so going back to Matic might actually be the play here.”

But others urged Polygon to stay the course.

One user wrote:

“I believe POL has already overcome the hardest part, which is initial acceptance. Stick with POL.”

Another argued that focusing on growth and adoption matters more than a ticker.

Suggestions for alternative routes even surfaced.

One user proposed introducing a fresh identity entirely, writing:

“Maybe ‘PGON’ or something would’ve done the trick?”

Would A Reversal Cause Even More Confusion?

While Nailwal is open to hearing the community’s views, he also recognises the risks.

Bringing back MATIC could create operational friction across the industry.

Exchanges may refuse to implement another change after handling the previous migration.

Wallets, decentralised protocols and data aggregators would also need to update their systems again.

Nailwal recognised that a reversal would likely cause greater confusion, given the heavy reliance on consistent messaging.

Blockchain projects cannot rely on the same rebrand-and-revert playbook sometimes seen in the retail sector.

While companies like GAP and Radio Shack have U-turned after customer pressure, crypto infrastructure changes carry deeper technical consequences.

Polygon’s Network Keeps Expanding Despite Branding Debate

Beyond the ticker conversation, Polygon continues to secure partnerships with global brands.

Mastercard recently selected Polygon as the first blockchain to support its verified username system for crypto transfers, aimed at simplifying the use of wallet addresses.

Companies including Nike, Starbucks and Disney also continue building within the ecosystem.

These developments show that enterprise adoption has not slowed — even if the token name remains a point of contention among retail users.

A Ticker Debate Highlights Crypto’s Communication Gap

For Coinlive, the debate around POL versus MATIC goes far beyond branding.

It highlights a widening gap between technical innovation and user intuition in today’s market.

When a network as large as Polygon needs to ask where its identity truly lies, it signals that the industry may be designing for developers first and everyday users second.

If retail users cannot recognise the token that powers one of the most active ecosystems in crypto, the issue is not just naming — it is communication, clarity and accessibility.

This moment could push the industry to build systems that people understand, not just systems that perform well.