# \[Proposal\] Get $AMPL supported on PoolTogether

**URL:** <https://forum.ampleforth.org/t/proposal-get-ampl-supported-on-pooltogether/150>\
**Category:** Ampleforth Governance\
**Created:** [July 31, 2021, 1:12am UTC](https://forum.ampleforth.org/t/proposal-get-ampl-supported-on-pooltogether/150 "2021-07-31T01:12:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Guz\_MassAdoption](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba9def/32.png) [@Guz\_MassAdoption](https://forum.ampleforth.org/u/Guz_MassAdoption)\
**Post date:** [July 31, 2021, 1:12am UTC](https://forum.ampleforth.org/t/proposal-get-ampl-supported-on-pooltogether/150/1 "2021-07-31T01:12:36Z")

</div>

**What is [PoolTogether](https://pooltogether.com/)?**

It’s a no-loss lottery protocol that allows participants to deposit their tokens into respective pools for a chance to win $$ from the prize pool.

**Motivation**  
Majority of the supported pools on PoolTogether are either of stablecoins (USDC, DAI, USDT, and GUSD) or of popular governance tokens (COMP, SUSHI, UNI, and PoolTogether’s native token $POOL).

This proposal aims to stimulate a conversation around PoolTogether supporting an $AMPL pool that respected the rebase mechanism.

Not only would this increase exposure for the Ampleforth Protocol, but also grant more utility for $AMPL. In fact, I find that it would be fairly interesting to see the participation metrics (primarily in TVL) along with the winners of the prize pool.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ampltools](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.ampleforth.org/ampltools/32/52_2.png) [@Ampltools](https://forum.ampleforth.org/u/Ampltools)\
**Post date:** [July 31, 2021, 7:13am UTC](https://forum.ampleforth.org/t/proposal-get-ampl-supported-on-pooltogether/150/2 "2021-07-31T07:13:20Z")

</div>

Hi @Guz_MassAdoption.  
I Participated in Pool Together(PT) v1 because I love the idea. And I think it could be fun / adds to strengthen the community by having AMPL there.

I am not fluent on PT, and only follow developments on a incidental basis. I find it cool you started this topic, so adding some info from my part.

Just went through the PT Docs to see how that would work (AMPL on PT). Just wanted to add the small bit of knowledge **I think I have (now).**

To list a token on Pooltogether there needs to be a specific market for that first. This can be

1. A Yield Price pool (through Compound), or
2. Stake Price pool

For 1 that means we first need to be on Compound before we can be on PT.  
For 2 that means there needs to be a Yield Source.

- Compound cToken Yield Source
- Aave aToken Yield Source
- xSushi Yield Source
- Yearn V2 Vault Yield Source

> **[GitHub - pooltogether/yield-source-interface](https://github.com/pooltogether/yield-source-interface)**
>
> Contribute to pooltogether/yield-source-interface development by creating an account on GitHub.

So it seems at least we are aligned with PT through the $aAMPL token, but at the current state I don’t see possibilities for naked $AMPL to be listed on PT?

Cheers

\*edit: Spellings

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pascal-merkleplant](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.ampleforth.org/pascal-merkleplant/32/104_2.png) [@pascal-merkleplant](https://forum.ampleforth.org/u/pascal-merkleplant)\
**Post date:** [August 10, 2021, 8:54am UTC](https://forum.ampleforth.org/t/proposal-get-ampl-supported-on-pooltogether/150/3 "2021-08-10T08:54:48Z")

</div>

Thanks for bringing PoolTogether up!  
I think you are right in bringing this proposal up now that AMPL is supported on AAVE 💯

As already mentioned, PoolTogether is a _no-loss_ lottery. Important here is that PoolTogether **guarantees** no loss of deposited assets (excluding smart contract risks).

For the already supported assets, no-loss is easy to define, i.e. no-loss in terms of the number of assets deposited and obviously not in terms of $ valuation.

However, for AMPL this definition is a bit more tricky. Do we want to support no-loss in terms of _percentage of supply_ or in terms of _number of AMPLs_ (~$ valuation)?

The next question would be if we can guarantee any of the two. From my current understanding, this is not the case.

If AMPL is deposited in AAVE, we could lose in terms of _number of AMPLs_ (i.e. ~$ valuation) if there is no borrowing activity during a contraction phase (sequence of negative rebases).

On the other side, if AMPL is expanding (sequence of positive rebases) with a high borrowing activity, we would lose _percentage of supply_.

Obviously, the deposited AMPL would continuously earn interest, but there is no **guarantee** how much this would subsidize the above-mentioned cases.

IMHO the strength of PoolTogether is the guarantee they provide, in contrast to probabilities provided by e.g. structured products, and from my current understanding, we sadly cannot provide any guarantees.