# Why Polygon support was removed? **URL:** \ **Category:** FAQ\ **Tags:** polygon, payouts\ **Created:** [April 26, 2024, 6:13am UTC](https://forum.storj.io/t/why-polygon-support-was-removed/25968 "2024-04-26T06:13:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 12
**Author:** ![arrogantrabbit](https://storj.bcdn.literatehosting.com/user_avatar/forum.storj.io/arrogantrabbit/32/11200_2.png) [@arrogantrabbit](https://forum.storj.io/u/arrogantrabbit)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 10:43pm UTC](https://forum.storj.io/t/why-polygon-support-was-removed/25968/12 "2024-04-27T22:43:44Z")
> [@FREDY](#): > > No, it is not that clear. It is may be just your understanding Correct. I feel zksync is a better engineered, cleaner solution, that does not introduce unnecessary complications. > [@FREDY](#): > > The initial discussion was why Polygon was dropped and also why zkSync was the preferred one by Storj Management It was pointed out above, that most storage node operators agree with me in preferring zksync, regardless of reasoning: Support for polygon was added, did not receive any traction, and was subsequently dropped. That’s the sufficient reason. Why zksync was chosen in the beginning — polygon did not exist when decision was made. See Alexeys comment above. > [@FREDY](#): > > What matters at the end is that it has a high transaction rate capacity and transfer fees are cheap So does zksync. And transaction rate is entirely irrelevant for storj usecase > [@FREDY](#): > > liquidity pools Liquidity is a problem, yes, but that’s because there is no incentive to use zksync today. As long as storj is paying gas — why should SNO jump through hoops with any L2 solution? I myself started with zksync and then switched back to L1. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.storj.io/t/why-polygon-support-was-removed/25968)._