BNB Chain BEP-20

Add Liquidity to an Existing BSC Pool

Deposit into a PancakeSwap or Uniswap pool that already trades on BNB Chain. Hold a concentrated position in it and the money joins that position instead of minting a rival to it, which no other tool on this chain will do. 0.01 BNB.

0.01 BNB service fee plus network gas

How to Add Liquidity on BSC

Find the pool

A BEP-20 address brings back the PancakeSwap and Uniswap pools trading it, listed by exchange, version and fee tier. Supply a pool address and it skips that step.

Choose a position or a pool

Pick one of your own positions and the deposit lands inside it, bounds untouched. Pick only the pool and something separate gets minted, the right call when the range no longer matches what you think.

Enter a single amount

Type one side. Its partner is computed from the pool's live price, and on a concentrated position from how near that price runs to either of your bounds.

Approve by signature where possible

A token supporting permit makes its allowance free. Permit2 covers many that do not. Only tokens with neither need a paid approval, and you are warned before that happens.

Check the rehearsal, then sign

The deposit is played against current BNB Chain state, so the amounts shown are the amounts taken, and anything that would revert says why beforehand.

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

Give it a BEP-20 address to see the pools carrying that token, or a pool address to go direct. Choose the pool, and choose a position inside it if one is yours, so the money lands there. Put in either figure and the pool decides its counterpart. Sign for the allowance if the token supports it, read the rehearsal, then confirm. PancakeSwap v2 and v3 and Uniswap v2 and v3 are all covered here.

Yes, and nothing else on this chain does. Every competing tool issues a new position NFT for each deposit, and the one priced identically to us concedes it in writing: their documentation says a new NFT is created for each addition, even at the same price range. Their product page still advertises adding to an existing pool, which is true and is a different thing entirely. Reaching your own position today means going through PancakeSwap's or Uniswap's own front end, or coming here.

Both work here, and for topping up an existing position the choice changes nothing about the mechanics. It matters when opening something new, because the two run different fee tiers, and it matters for depth, since a pair may be well supplied on one exchange and thin on the other. The tool reads which exchange a position belongs to rather than asking you.

Four on each exchange, and they are not the same four. PancakeSwap v3 offers 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.25% and 1.00%. Uniswap v3 on this chain offers 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.30% and 1.00%. The only difference is the middle slot, and it is the one most pairs sit in: PancakeSwap has no 0.30% tier at all and Uniswap here has no 0.25% tier at all. Tick spacings differ to match, at 50 for PancakeSwap's 0.25% against 60 for Uniswap's 0.30%.

0.17% of each swap, not the 0.25% usually quoted as trading fees. The pair charges 0.25% and splits it: 0.17% to each liquidity provider, and the balance divided between the protocol treasury and buying and burning CAKE. Plenty of pages quote 0.25% as your income and one quotes it as 0.25 to 0.3%, which is Uniswap's number applied to the wrong exchange. Uniswap v2 charges 0.30% and passes all of it to providers, so on this chain the two are closer than the headline rates suggest.

Substantially, on both exchanges. A position and its price boundaries only get written once, so a later deposit into the same one is doing markedly less work than minting from nothing. It also leaves you with a single position to collect from and close rather than an accumulating set of them.

It cannot. Putting money into a position you own is fine; giving that position different bounds is impossible, since they are read from storage and nothing in the call replaces them. Where the range no longer reflects your thinking, the answer is minting something separate in the same pool, which the tool will do for you.

Because the amount the pool receives is smaller than the amount sent once the tax is taken, and a concentrated pool rejects the deposit when the two do not match. Tokens that tax transfers are common on this chain and are unsupported by v3 on either exchange as a matter of protocol design. They work in v2 pairs, where the tolerance simply has to sit above the token's tax rate. If a deposit reverts and the token is taxed, that is almost always the reason.

In a v2 pair the reserves dictate it, so you supply both sides at whatever proportion they currently sit at, receiving LP tokens for your share of that liquidity pool. Concentrated liquidity depends instead on the price's position between your bounds: near enough balanced mid-range, listing toward one asset as it nears an edge, and that asset alone once past it, when a single token is all the deposit requires. Rather than guess, the tool quotes the partner figure live.

No. Concentrated liquidity is written at the bounds you nominated and the stored price is not touched. A v2 deposit at the existing reserve ratio grows both sides in step, leaving that ratio where it was. What you get is a pool that resists movement better, the reverse of what people tend to fear.

0.01 BNB plus gas, published here rather than revealed once a wallet is connected. Two other tools match that figure, one asks 0.025 BNB and one asks 0.06 BNB for the same deposit, while another publishes nothing at all. So price is not where the difference lies on this chain: the tools at our price cannot deposit into a position you already own.

At will, and at any size, unless the position was burned or locked on purpose. Remove liquidity runs from a token trim right up to closing the whole thing, paying out whatever fees a concentrated position has banked in the process.

Depositing Into a Pool Is Not Depositing Into Your Position

These sound like the same sentence and they describe different transactions. A pool is a market anybody can put money into. A concentrated position is a specific holding inside that market, with price boundaries you chose, owned by your wallet and represented by an NFT. Every tool on BNB Chain can do the first. None of them can do the second.

The distinction only becomes expensive once you have been providing liquidity for a while. Deposit into the same market four times through a tool that mints each time, and you finish holding four positions where you wanted one: four fee balances accruing separately, four transactions to collect from, four more to close. Nothing has gone wrong exactly, but a single holding has quietly turned into bookkeeping.

The tool priced level with us documents this behaviour plainly in its own help pages while its product page advertises adding to an existing pool, which is accurate and is not the same claim. That gap between the marketing and the mechanism is the whole reason this page exists.

The Middle Tier Exists on One Exchange and Not the Other

BNB Chain carries two concentrated exchanges whose fee tiers are almost identical, and the one place they diverge is the tier most pairs actually use. PancakeSwap v3 runs 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.25% and 1.00%. Uniswap v3 here runs 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.30% and 1.00%. Three of the four match exactly. The middle one does not exist on the other side: there is no 0.30% PancakeSwap pool and no 0.25% Uniswap pool anywhere on this chain.

That trips people up in a specific way. Someone reading a guide written for Uniswap goes looking for the 0.3% tier on PancakeSwap and cannot find it, or assumes the 0.25% pool they are in is the same market as a 0.3% pool somewhere else. They are separate markets with separate liquidity, separate prices and separate positions. The tick spacing differs too, at 50 against 60, which is why they cannot simply be treated as equivalent.

Because the tool reads the tier off the pool rather than asking you to choose one, this mostly resolves itself when you are topping up. It matters when you are picking a market to join, and it is worth knowing that both exchanges leave every tier open to anyone, with no approval needed to use one.

What a Liquidity Provider Actually Earns Here

PancakeSwap v2 charges 0.25% on a trade, and that figure gets repeated constantly as what providers earn. It is not. The 0.25% is split three ways: 0.17% reaches liquidity providers, and the remainder goes to the protocol treasury and to buying and burning CAKE. So the income on a PancakeSwap pair is roughly a third smaller than the number most pages give you, which matters a great deal if you are modelling whether a position is worth holding.

Uniswap v2 on the same chain charges 0.30% and passes the whole of it to providers. That makes the real gap between the two exchanges wider than their headline rates imply: 0.17% against 0.30%, not 0.25% against 0.30%. Depth usually matters more than either figure, since a well-supplied pool trading often will beat a thin one on a better rate, but it is worth having the correct numbers before making that trade-off.

One further caution if you go looking: the split has been revised, and a lot of otherwise reliable pages still quote the older breakdown. The provider's share of 0.17% is the part that has stayed constant, which is the number that concerns you.