Arbitrum ERC-20

Add Liquidity to an Existing Pool on Arbitrum

Deposit into a Uniswap pool that is already trading on Arbitrum One, on v2, v3 or v4. Already own a position there? The money lands in that one instead of buying you another NFT to look after. Put in one figure and the pool works out the rest. 0.002 ETH.

0.002 ETH service fee plus network gas

How to Add Liquidity on Arbitrum

Point it at the pool

A token address brings back the Uniswap markets trading that token on Arbitrum, listed by version and tier. A pool address goes straight there. Positions your wallet already holds are shown at the same time.

Choose the position, not just the pool

Selecting a position you own deposits into that one and leaves its bounds alone. Choosing the pool by itself mints a separate position, which is what you want only if you have changed your mind about the range.

Fill in one side

Enter either token and its counterpart is derived from the current price, plus, on a concentrated position, from how far that price sits from each of your bounds. Nothing beyond what the ratio calls for is taken.

Approve with a signature where you can

A token implementing permit makes its allowance free to grant, and Permit2 reaches a good share of those that do not implement it. Paid approvals are reserved for tokens supporting neither, and the form flags that before you get there.

Read the dry run and confirm

Your exact deposit runs against Arbitrum as it currently stands, so the figures on screen are the figures that move. Blocks land roughly every quarter second here, which leaves the ratio little room to drift between quote and confirmation.

code_off

No Code Required

Create and launch tokens without writing any code. Visual configuration for all features.

visibility

Fully Transparent

All token data is publicly visible and verifiable on block explorers.

hub

Multi-Chain

Available on Solana, Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Polygon, and BNB Chain.

shield

Full Ownership

You have full control. We never hold your keys, tokens, or authority.

Frequently Asked Questions

Hand it a token contract and it returns the markets trading that token; hand it a pool and it goes straight there. Choose one, and if a position in it is already yours, select that too, so the money lands there instead of in a second one. Fill in either of the two amounts, let the pool determine its counterpart, grant the allowance by signature if the token permits that, and confirm. Uniswap v2 pairs and v3 and v4 pools on Arbitrum One are all covered, against ETH or native USDC.

All three that are live on Arbitrum: v2 pairs, v3 positions and v4 positions. That is worth stating plainly because tools in this category routinely advertise support for any Uniswap pool while handling only v2, so pasting a v3 pool address gets you an error rather than the thing the page promised. If a pool exists on Arbitrum, this deposits into it.

Yes, and it is the reason this exists. Roughly a third of all Uniswap liquidity added on Arbitrum goes into positions that already exist rather than new ones, which is a large share of people to have no tooling for. Rival services hand you another NFT every time regardless, so someone who deposits monthly accumulates a row of positions that each need collecting from and closing individually. Uniswap's own app can top up, so this is not the only route, but among third-party tools it is the one that does not leave your liquidity split.

About half the gas, and that gap belongs to the protocol rather than to anything we charge. Real Arbitrum receipts put an increase to a live v3 position near 235,000 gas, against roughly 449,000 to mint from scratch. Since the position and its ticks have already been written once, there is simply less for the second deposit to do. Arbitrum makes both cheap in absolute terms, roughly a cent or two at the gas price the chain has been sitting on, but the proportion travels to every chain.

No. Depositing into a position you own is entirely possible; changing that position's bounds is not, because the contract reads its ticks from storage and accepts no replacement. So a top-up is a way of committing more at the range you already picked. If your view of the range has changed, what you actually want is a separate position, and the tool will mint one in the same pool.

On Uniswap v3, four: 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.30% and 1.00%, the same set Ethereum mainnet carries. Anything quoting a 0.25% Uniswap fee is describing a different exchange, and the difference matters because it changes your expected income by up to thirty times on the narrowest tier. Uniswap v4 dropped fixed tiers entirely, so a v4 pool carries whatever fee its creator set, occasionally one that moves block to block. The tool reads the fee off the pool rather than making you guess.

Not on v3, where the fees stay owed to the position and your wallet pays the whole amount you typed. v4 does the opposite and spends the uncollected fees toward the deposit first, so less leaves your balance than the number you entered. Same button, opposite outcomes, and the dry run is where you see which one applies before committing to it.

There is a trap here that is specific to Arbitrum and catches people who did nothing wrong. Contracts on Arbitrum do not see the Arbitrum block number: reading it from inside the EVM returns Ethereum's, which is currently around half a billion blocks behind. Any token with block-counted launch protection, the kind that blocks transfers or caps wallets for a few blocks after deploy, is therefore counting Ethereum blocks at twelve seconds each rather than Arbitrum blocks at a quarter second. A cooldown the deployer expected to clear in under a minute can still be running hours later. Uniswap itself is unaffected because it works from timestamps; the token is what rejects you.

A v2 pair insists on the proportions currently sitting in its reserves, and returns LP tokens for your share of that liquidity pool. Concentrated liquidity turns on how far the price has travelled toward either of your bounds: close to even in the middle, leaning harder into one asset as it nears an edge, and wholly that asset once it has crossed, at which point only the one token is needed. Rather than assume, the tool quotes the counterpart figure live, because guessing at fifty-fifty misleads far more often than it helps.

No. Concentrated liquidity gets written into the tick range you named, and the stored price is left exactly as it was. In a v2 pair, a deposit matching the reserves' existing proportions grows both of them by the same multiple, so nothing about the implied price shifts. Your deposit instead makes the pool harder for the next trade to move, which is very nearly the reverse of the worry.

It guards the make-up of your deposit rather than an exchange rate, since no swap takes place. A trade by someone else, landing in the interval before yours does, shifts the pool's ratio and leaves the two amounts you agreed to no longer fitting it. Your tolerance decides how much of that shift is acceptable before the whole thing reverts instead of quietly depositing different proportions. Quarter-second blocks keep that interval short on Arbitrum. Worth knowing that some tools fix this value in code and never show it to you at all.

A flat 0.002 ETH, on top of gas that comes to a cent or two here. Rivals who publish a figure sit between 0.001 and 0.015 ETH, and several disclose nothing at all until you have reached the confirmation screen, which places us second cheapest and not cheapest. Depositing through Uniswap's own interface is free apart from gas, so the 0.002 ETH covers three things: depositing into a position you already hold, allowances granted by signature, and a rehearsal you get to read before signing.

Whenever you want, and in whatever share, provided it was not deliberately burned or handed to a locker. Remove liquidity handles anything from a 1% trim to a full exit, settling a concentrated position's earned fees in the same transaction. Should no pool exist for your token in the first place, the Arbitrum pool creator covers that job.

One Deposit in Three Goes Into a Position That Already Exists

Almost every guide to providing liquidity teaches the first deposit, because that is the interesting one to write about. The behaviour on Arbitrum tells a different story. Counting real Uniswap liquidity additions on the chain, roughly a third of them go into positions that already exist rather than opening new ones, and on v4 the share is higher still. That is a very large group of liquidity providers to have essentially no third-party tooling for, and every one of them is watching trading fees accrue against a position they cannot easily feed.

The reason it matters is that the two operations are not interchangeable. Rival services issue a brand-new position NFT for every single deposit, the range you asked for being irrelevant to that, and not one of them discloses it. Three deposits therefore leave you holding three positions in place of one, each carrying its own fee balance to sweep, its own closing transaction and its own gas bill on the way out. The measured cost points the same direction: about 235,000 gas to increase something that exists, against roughly 449,000 to write a position and its ticks from nothing.

So the useful question on returning to a pool is not how much to put in but what to put it into. Where those bounds still match your reading of the market, deposit into the thing you already own. Where they no longer do, no amount of topping up will say so, and minting something separate is the honest answer.

The Block Number Your Token Sees Is Not Arbitrum's

This one is genuinely peculiar to Arbitrum and it produces failures that look like the tool is broken. A contract running on Arbitrum that asks for the current block number does not get Arbitrum's. It gets Ethereum's, which sits around half a billion blocks behind, and it advances at Ethereum's pace of roughly twelve seconds rather than Arbitrum's quarter of a second.

That is harmless until a token uses block counts for launch protection, which is extremely common. A contract that pauses transfers or caps wallet sizes for the first few blocks after deployment is, on Arbitrum, counting Ethereum blocks. A restriction the deployer expected to lift in well under a minute is still enforcing itself hours later, and every attempt to deposit into the pool reverts against it. Nothing is wrong with the pool, the deposit or the wallet.

Uniswap's own contracts sidestep this because they gate on timestamps rather than block heights, so the protocol is unaffected. The token is what turns you away. If a brand-new token refuses your deposit for no visible reason, this is the first thing worth checking, and the answer is usually to wait rather than to change anything.

On v4 the Fee Is Whatever the Pool Decided

Uniswap v3 on Arbitrum offers four fee tiers and only four: 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.30% and 1.00%. The set has not changed since the 0.01% tier was added by governance in early 2023, and it matches Ethereum mainnet exactly. Where new pools land has shifted sharply though. Across a recent week of new v3 pools on Arbitrum, the overwhelming majority opened on the 1.00% tier, which is the tier tokens with real volatility use, rather than spreading across the four the way early Arbitrum did.

Uniswap v4 abandoned the fixed list altogether. A v4 pool carries whatever fee its creator chose when opening it, and in a recent week of Arbitrum v4 pools that meant dozens of distinct values scattered anywhere from nothing at all to almost the entire trade. A meaningful share of them use a fee that changes as the pool runs rather than a fixed one, and a quarter hold native ETH directly with no wrapping involved. So on v4 there is no correct tier to pick, only the one the pool already has, which the tool reads for you rather than asking.