Polygon ERC-20

Add Liquidity to a Polygon Pool

Put more into a Uniswap or QuickSwap market that already exists on Polygon PoS. Hold a position there and the deposit joins it rather than spawning a duplicate, which is where the gas saving comes from. 10 POL.

10 POL service fee plus network gas

How to Add Liquidity on Polygon

Find the market

One token address returns every Uniswap and QuickSwap market carrying it, side by side; a pool address jumps straight to that market. Whatever your wallet already holds appears in the same list.

Deposit into a position, or start a new one

Choose a position you own and the money joins it with its bounds untouched. Choose only the pool and a distinct position gets minted, which is correct when you want different bounds and wasteful when you do not.

Enter one amount

Type either token; the second is worked out from what the pool is trading at and, for a concentrated position, from the distance between that price and each of your two bounds. Only what the ratio requires is taken.

Approve by signature where the token allows it

Permit turns the allowance into a free signature and Permit2 covers many tokens that lack it. A paid approval is only needed for tokens supporting neither, and you are warned in advance.

Check the rehearsal, then confirm

Your deposit is played out against Polygon as it stands, so the amounts on screen are the amounts that leave, and a failure explains itself in plain words instead of a bare revert.

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

Begin with a token address to survey the markets carrying it, or a pool address to skip that step. Pick the market, then pick your position within it if you have one, and the money goes there. Supply one of the two figures and the pool supplies its partner, sign for the allowance where the token permits it, then confirm. Uniswap v2, v3 and v4 are covered along with QuickSwap, all on Polygon PoS.

It is a common complaint on Polygon and it is not you. The interfaces present adding to a pool and creating one as the same flow, so once a pool exists the path to putting more into it is buried, and on a concentrated position the option people actually want, adding to the one they already hold, often is not offered at all. That is the gap this tool fills: it starts from what you own rather than from an empty form.

Yes, and no other tool on Polygon will. Competing services mint a fresh position NFT per deposit, something one of them states outright in its own documentation: a new NFT for every addition, even at an identical price range. Make three deposits and you are looking after three positions where you meant to build one, each collecting trading fees from swaps in isolation. Uniswap's own interface handles this, so it is not the sole route, merely the only one outside Uniswap itself.

Considerably, on both exchanges. Measured from real Polygon transactions, adding to an existing Uniswap v3 position uses about 312,000 gas against roughly 532,000 to mint a new one, a saving of around 41%. On QuickSwap the same comparison is about 472,000 against 836,000, a saving of around 44%. Because the position and its price boundaries were written once already, a later deposit simply has less to record.

For adding to a position you already own, identically. The two exchanges take different approaches to almost everything else, but the function that increases an existing position is the same function with the same arguments on both, so a top-up is the one operation where the choice of exchange changes nothing about what happens. Opening a new position is where they diverge.

It genuinely does, by roughly half again, and nobody publishes this. A top-up on QuickSwap runs about 472,000 gas against roughly 312,000 on Uniswap v3, and a new position about 836,000 against 532,000. The difference is in how QuickSwap's pools track state, not in anything you are doing differently. On Polygon the absolute amounts are small enough that it rarely decides anything, but it is worth knowing the number rather than assuming the two are equivalent.

10 POL plus gas, and gas for a top-up runs somewhere between roughly 0.05 and 0.5 POL, which is under a cent when the chain is quiet and a few cents when it is busy. Either way the fee is essentially the whole cost and the network is close to free. Among tools that publish a price at all, one matches us at 10 POL and the rest are considerably higher, including one asking 250 POL for the same action. Depositing through Uniswap's or QuickSwap's own interface costs nothing beyond gas.

Because what you pay on Polygon is decided by competition for priority, not by the network's own base fee, and the two behave differently. The base fee typically sits around 250 gwei but is not a reliable guide, since it occasionally reads zero outright while transactions in that same block still pay hundreds of gwei. Measured from what people actually paid across a recent five-day stretch, the identical deposit cost between roughly a twentieth and half a POL depending only on when it was sent. This chain also enforces a 25 gwei minimum, beneath which a deposit is not merely slow but never included at all.

A v2-style pair takes both sides in whatever proportion its reserves currently sit at, handing you LP tokens for your share of that liquidity pool. Concentrated liquidity varies with the price's position between your bounds: fairly even mid-range, leaning further into one asset the closer it gets to a bound, and holding that asset alone once it has passed beyond, at which point the deposit needs nothing else. The second figure gets quoted live as you type rather than assumed.

The position is sitting on a single asset, so a deposit into it needs only that one token. Think about whether you want to, though. Nothing outside its range earns anything until the price comes back inside, which makes topping one up a wager that it will rather than a way of earning more now.

No. A concentrated deposit places liquidity at the ticks you specified and never writes the pool's price. A deposit into a v2-style pair at the ratio the reserves already hold scales both sides equally and leaves the ratio, and therefore the price, untouched. It makes the pool harder to move rather than moving it.

Protecting the shape of your deposit. A trade landing ahead of yours rearranges the pool's proportions, and the pair of figures you accepted stops matching what it will now take. Your tolerance decides how much rearranging is allowed before the transaction reverts rather than quietly depositing something else. Hitting that limit costs you a gas fee and nothing more.

Not at all: any Uniswap or QuickSwap market on Polygon works, whoever built it and wherever its token came from. There is one check worth thirty seconds beforehand, which is comparing what the pool thinks the asset is worth against what it fetches on a real exchange. A pool that has drifted apart from the wider market will be corrected by arbitrage, and your deposit is what funds that correction. Uniswap words its own warning here severely, putting the worst case as losing the money entirely and for good.

Any time, at any size, so long as nobody burned or locked the position first. Remove liquidity covers everything from a 1% trim to a complete exit, and settles a concentrated position's earned fees while it is there.

The One Thing Both Polygon Exchanges Agree On

Polygon is unusual among the chains we cover in having two exchanges worth supporting rather than one, which means providing liquidity here starts with a choice most chains do not offer. They disagree about a great deal. They disagree about how fees are set, about what a pool even is, and about what happens when you open a position. There is one operation where they agree completely, and it happens to be the one this page is about: increasing a position that already exists is the same function, taking the same arguments, on both. A top-up is the single place where the choice of exchange changes nothing at all.

That matters because it is also the operation nobody else offers to a liquidity provider here. Every competing tool on Polygon issues a brand-new position NFT each time you deposit, and one of them documents this plainly in its own help pages while never mentioning it on the page where you would actually make the mistake. The result is a wallet holding several positions where the person intended to build one, each with fees to collect separately and each costing gas to close.

The cost points the same way. Adding to a Uniswap v3 position you already hold uses roughly 312,000 gas against about 532,000 to mint a fresh one, and on QuickSwap the gap is wider still, roughly 472,000 against 836,000. Around 41% and 44% saved respectively, simply for putting the money where you already had some.

Same Question, Different Answer

Here is a trap that only exists because Polygon carries two exchanges built from the same original design, and it is the kind of thing that produces wrong numbers rather than error messages. Asking a position for its details uses an identically named function with an identical four-byte signature on both exchanges. What comes back is not the same shape. Uniswap returns twelve fields, one of which is the pool's fee tier. QuickSwap returns eleven, and has no fee field at all, because its pools set their own fee rather than being assigned to a tier.

Because the signature matches, nothing warns you in advance. What happens instead is that software written for one exchange and pointed at the other reads the reply out of alignment, tries to interpret a negative price boundary as a fee, and falls over with a complaint about a number being out of range. The error is real but it describes the symptom rather than the cause, which is why this particular mistake tends to cost someone an afternoon.

The same trap catches transaction bundles. The two exchanges name their helper functions differently, so the routine used to hand back leftover native currency after a deposit exists under one name on Uniswap and a different one on QuickSwap. Bundle a correct deposit together with the wrong helper and the whole thing reverts, even though the deposit itself was fine. Supporting both exchanges honestly means treating them as different wherever they are different rather than assuming a matching signature implies matching behaviour, which is why a position here is read using the layout belonging to the exchange its pool actually came from.

Where Uniswap v4 Changes the Arithmetic

Something worth knowing before you pick which market to deposit into: on Polygon, Uniswap v4 is now both the cheapest version to add to and the busiest. A v4 liquidity change runs around 238,000 gas, which is less than topping up a v3 position and well under half the cost of minting a new v3 one. Measured over a recent sample, v4 activity exceeded v3's new positions and top-ups put together. The version most guides still treat as the newcomer is the one Polygon has largely moved to.

The practical effect is that the cheapest thing you can do here is add to an existing v4 position, and the most expensive is open a fresh position on QuickSwap, with a gap of roughly three and a half times between them. None of that shows up in any interface, because each one quotes you a number without telling you what the alternative would have cost.

There is a reliability argument alongside the cost one. Deposits into pools that already exist almost always succeed: measured across real Polygon transactions, adding to an existing position fails around 1 to 2% of the time on either exchange. Creating a pool is a different story, with more than half of QuickSwap pool creations failing, mostly because several people race to open the same market and only one of them can win. Joining a market that exists is simply a more reliable operation than making one.