Ample vs PoolTogether V4: fees, audits and prizes (2026)

Both protocols use a prize-linked savings model: deposits remain the depositor’s principal, while yield funds prizes. Ample stands out for its nine listed chains, wider asset mix and weekly payout cycle. Its site also shows a countdown and recent payout history, and the project says its draws use verifiable on-chain randomness. PoolTogether V4 lists four chains and emphasizes an open-source, permissionless design, plus documentation and tools for builders who want to add vaults. Its homepage says users can withdraw at any time.

Neither project publishes prize odds that let you estimate expected winnings. Ample says users earn tickets over time and that larger deposits mean more chances, but does not explain how ticket counts translate into odds. PoolTogether V4 does not publish odds or prize sizes in the information listed here. Treat prizes as uncertain, not as an expected return.

PoolTogether V4 is the clearer choice if a stated protocol-fee policy matters: its homepage says there are no fees. It does not publish a detailed fee schedule beyond that statement. Ample has not published its deposit, withdrawal or performance fees, nor how much generated yield goes to prizes versus the protocol, so those costs and allocations are not clear.

Neither claim means transactions are cost-free. Network gas applies when you deposit or withdraw, and the amount depends on the chain and transaction. PoolTogether V4 specifically notes that gas can make small deposits unattractive, particularly on Ethereum mainnet. Before signing, check the transaction cost in your wallet and compare it with the amount you plan to deposit. For Ample, read the relevant vault details and project documentation for any fee or yield-allocation terms that are not stated on its homepage.

PoolTogether V4 has two audits listed and links to security information. Ample has no audits listed, and no security firm, bug bounty or insurance cover is named. That gives PoolTogether V4 more published security documentation, but an audit does not guarantee that contracts are free of bugs or that funds cannot be lost.

Both protocols carry smart-contract and underlying-yield-source risk. A deposited asset can also lose value in dollar terms if it is volatile, and failures involving a yield source can affect deposits. Ample’s risks deserve particular attention because its yield strategy and custody details are not described here; its multi-chain and multi-asset setup can also involve bridge, issuer and price risks. PoolTogether V4’s description likewise does not remove the risks of its contracts or yield sources. Neither project states a regulatory status. Prize draws may be regulated differently by location: you must be 18 or older and should check local laws before taking part.

Ample may suit you if you want more chain and asset options, a visible weekly draw cycle and the ability to check randomness on-chain. Its deposits are described as having no lockups, but the project has not published fees, audits or a clear explanation of ticket-to-odds conversion. Its TVL is about $314,128, and its short track record calls for caution.

PoolTogether V4 may suit you if you prefer a stated no-protocol-fee policy, two listed audits and an open-source, permissionless design. It has higher TVL at about $727,287, though that is still a relatively small prize pool and does not ensure large prizes or easy liquidity. Its four listed networks offer fewer options than Ample’s nine. For either protocol, choose only after checking the vault, asset, yield source, gas cost and withdrawal conditions for the specific chain you plan to use.