The POL token upgrade was supposed to close the chapter on MATIC — instead, the rebrand has triggered one of Polygon’s most unexpected debates: should the project go back to its old ticker?
Key Takeaways:
Polygon is reconsidering its POL ticker after strong community feedback favoring MATIC.
Community sentiment is split, and branding concerns surfaced while the token trades far below its peak
The discussion gained momentum only after co-founder Sandeep Nailwal admitted that he is regularly hearing from users who don’t realize the asset they once owned is still the same one under a new ticker. According to Nailwal, this confusion is not limited to crypto-native circles but extends to everyday traders who previously recognized MATIC instantly.
The branding dilemma arrives after the migration, not before
When the token swap was carried out in September 2024, Polygon framed POL as an upgrade — not a rename. The new design expanded utility beyond staking rewards and gas fees, enabling POL holders to earn income for roles such as securing data availability or contributing to sequencer decentralization. From a technical standpoint, the change was an expansion of functionality, not a reset of identity.
But while Polygon was focused on the mechanics, many market participants seem to have fixated on something simpler: the disappearance of a brand they understood.
Nailwal says he personally believes POL should remain, yet the repeated pushback pushed him to raise the question publicly. His post on X directly asked whether the token should revert to MATIC, not because he wants it, but because community sentiment appears strong enough to warrant evaluation.
A token under pressure amplifies frustration
The conversation is happening against a backdrop of rough price action — and that has intensified the emotional tone around the branding question.
CoinGecko data shows the token once reached $1.29 in March 2024, but currently trades near $0.13, leaving it roughly 89% below its peak.
For some, the long drawdown makes branding feel more crucial for the next adoption wave. For others, switching again would look uncertain and undermine Polygon’s message of long-term direction.
Community reactions reveal three different camps
Comments under Nailwal’s post show clear divisions:
• The “identity matters” camp argues that MATIC’s recognizability — especially among casual crypto users — gives it an advantage that POL has not yet built.
• The “stick with POL” crowd says Polygon should not reverse progress just because the ticker hasn’t reached full adoption yet.
• A smaller group supports neither path and proposes a new ticker altogether, such as PGON, to avoid confusion and avoid walking backward.
What happens next?
Polygon has not announced a vote, a decision path, or a timeline. The fact that the discussion was escalated by a co-founder simply indicates one thing: branding has become important enough that the project cannot ignore user sentiment, even if POL technically delivers more utility than MATIC ever did.
Whether Polygon doubles down on POL, returns to its former identity, or considers a new direction entirely, the outcome will help determine how the next wave of adoption recognizes the project — through a function-driven token or a brand-driven one.
