TL;DR
- Polygon’s co-founder considers reverting the token ticker from POL to MATIC.
- The original MATIC brand had stronger global recognition among retail users.
- The community is split between technical upgrades and brand familiarity.
Polygon co-founder Sandeep Nailwal ignited a public conversation regarding the network’s token branding, asking whether the ticker should revert from POL back to MATIC.
On Wednesday, Nailwal stated that, while he personally favors keeping POL, he continues to hear that the original MATIC ticker had stronger recognition. He noted that retail users are confused about the token’s current identity.
“The counter-argument I keep getting is: 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,” Nailwal wrote.
He asked followers on X whether they think the network should revert to MATIC, adding, “I’m genuinely curious what the broader community thinks, because this feedback keeps coming up.” Polygon had not responded to Cointelegraph by the time of publication.
Thought Experiment:
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…
— Sandeep | CEO, Polygon Foundation (※,※) (@sandeepnailwal) November 25, 2025
Polygon Token Performance and Community Split
Since the September 4, 2024 migration from MATIC to POL, Polygon positioned the change as an upgrade. At the time, CEO Marc Boiron said that POL “goes one step further” than its predecessor, noting that POL not only earns fees from gas and staking but also collects fees from securing data availability and decentralizing a sequencer.
Despite the technical improvements, Polygon’s token trades 89% below its all-time high, highlighting challenges in retail recognition and market perception.
Community responses to Nailwal’s post revealed a split in opinion. Some argued that fundamentals outweigh branding. One X user wrote that Polygon should “keep building because fundamentals matter more than tickers.” Another added, “POL has already overcome the hardest part, which is initial acceptance. Stick with POL.”
Conversely, other users emphasized brand recognition and retail familiarity. Mo Ezeldin suggested that returning to MATIC could attract retail users who associate Polygon with its original ticker. Another proposed an alternative ticker like PGON to balance recognition and intuitiveness for new market participants.
The discussion underscores ongoing tension between technical upgrades and market perception, leaving the decision on Polygon’s token branding under active community debate.
