Arbitrum ERC-20

Remove Liquidity from Uniswap on Arbitrum

Withdraw from a Uniswap v2, v3 or v4 position on Arbitrum One, anywhere from a 1% trim to the whole thing. The two calls a v3 withdrawal needs are sent together, so your principal and your earned fees arrive in the same transaction rather than one of them going missing. 0.002 ETH.

0.002 ETH service fee plus network gas

How to Remove Liquidity on Arbitrum

Connect and pick what to withdraw from

LP token balances sit alongside v3 and v4 position NFTs in one list. Worth knowing that on Arbitrum almost everything is a position NFT now, so the LP token most guides describe is rarely the thing you are actually holding.

Say how much

From 1% up to everything. A partial withdrawal leaves the position open at the bounds it already has, so the remainder keeps working.

Look at the two numbers separately

Principal and accrued fees are shown apart, because on a concentrated position they often come back in different shapes. Should the price have wandered outside your bounds, the review names the single token your principal has converted into.

Sign once

Everything the withdrawal needs is bundled into one signature, including the fee collection that v3 will not do on its own, plus unwrapping WETH back into ETH where the pair holds it.

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

Connect the wallet holding it and your positions are found for you, covering v2 pairs as well as v3 and v4 NFTs. Choose one, set a percentage anywhere from 1 to 100, check what the review says is coming back, and sign. Everything needed lands in a single transaction, which on a v3 position means two protocol calls rather than one.

Here, yes, and it is worth explaining because on Uniswap v3 it is not automatic. Shrinking concentrated liquidity and being paid the trading fees it earned are two different calls, on any fee tier a liquidity pool runs. The first logs the debt against the position manager and moves nothing whatsoever, neither the fees nor the principal. Tokens only travel on the second. Across a week of real Arbitrum withdrawals, about one in seven was the first call with no second one attached, and every single one of those people had to send another transaction to actually get paid, typically some seconds later but in one case nearly four hours. Both calls go out together here, so the situation does not arise.

Yes, and v4 is the cheapest version to exit on Arbitrum because the protocol settles the whole withdrawal in one operation instead of two. It is also the least served: no competing tool publishes a v4 removal page, on Arbitrum or anywhere else, while Arbitrum alone processes thousands of v4 withdrawals a week. Several will happily help you open a v4 position and then have nothing for getting back out of it.

Anything from 1% to 99% keeps the position alive and earning on the balance. The bounds you originally set are untouched by a partial withdrawal, so trimming a position repeatedly costs you nothing in terms of the range and does not mint anything new.

It is burned, and you should know that this is a deliberate departure from what normally happens. Emptying a position and destroying it are separate steps in the protocol, and virtually nobody takes the second one: across every Arbitrum withdrawal we sampled that reduced a position to zero, not one burned the NFT afterwards. Every one of those wallets is now holding an empty token that still costs storage and still shows up in their position list. Taking 100% here clears it out properly, which does mean the token ID is retired permanently. If you might come back to those exact bounds, stop at 99% instead and the position stays usable.

The price left your price range at some point, so the pool has long since swapped your principal into whichever asset it ended on. For anyone providing liquidity on Arbitrum this is the majority case rather than an oddity, though less overwhelmingly than on some chains: a little under 60% of real withdrawals were out of range at the moment of exit. Fees are tracked separately and roughly two thirds of those still paid out in both tokens. The other third paid no fees at all, usually because they had already been swept in an earlier transaction, so a single-token payout is not proof that anything went wrong.

No, and the evidence here is stronger than people expect. Only a trade can shift a pool's price, because swapping is the one operation that writes it. We took real Arbitrum withdrawals that pulled more than 99.99% of a pool's active liquidity in a single transaction, then compared the stored price either side of that block: identical, down to the final digit, tick unmoved. What changes is the pool's resilience afterwards, since less depth means the next trade travels further.

This is an Arbitrum-specific trap and it has caught people for years. Part of your gas limit here covers the cost of publishing your transaction's data to Ethereum, and that portion is priced off Ethereum rather than Arbitrum. It is small most of the time and occasionally fifty times larger. An estimate taken while Ethereum was quiet, signed a few minutes later into a busy patch, can be an underestimate, and the transaction runs out of gas mid-execution. The fix is unglamorous: raise the gas limit substantially and send it again. The tool re-estimates immediately before you sign to shrink that window.

A pair destroys 1,000 units of LP tokens the first time anyone ever deposits into it, which defends against a rounding exploit and puts those units permanently out of reach. Hundreds of Arbitrum pairs were checked and every one of them carried that identical floor. Create the pool and take 100% back out, and what returns is everything sitting above the floor. A caution on measuring it: the burn address is not the place to look, since people also send LP tokens there deliberately. Arbitrum pairs exist whose whole supply was handed to a dead address on purpose, so the contract-enforced portion is just those first 1,000.

0.002 ETH, published here rather than revealed at the confirmation screen, plus gas. A full v3 withdrawal on Arbitrum runs about 227,000 gas, which at the price this chain has been sitting on amounts to a rounding error, so the fee is realistically the entire cost. Comparable tools ask between 0.001 and 0.015 ETH where they disclose a figure at all, leaving us in second place on price rather than first. Uniswap's interface charges nothing beyond gas.

The work is identical and the price of that work is not. The same withdrawal consumes almost exactly the same gas on both chains, within about one percent, because it is the same contract doing the same thing. What differs is the price per unit of gas, currently by a factor of roughly thirty. Put plainly, Arbitrum does not make the transaction any simpler; it makes it cheap enough that trimming a position when you feel like it stops being a decision about gas at all.

Neither, and in both cases that is the design working. A locker holds your LP under a release date it will not move, and the date is readable on that contract if you want to confirm it. Burning is more absolute: the tokens went to an address nobody controls, leaving the liquidity in the pool indefinitely. An offer to undo either one in exchange for a fee is an offer to do something the contracts forbid.

The receipt your wallet shows is a real one from a real block, not a preview that can be taken back, so for practical purposes you are done in about a quarter of a second. Underneath, your transaction reaches Ethereum in roughly two to three minutes and reads as fully finalised around twenty minutes after you signed. The seven-day window people mention in connection with Arbitrum applies to bridging assets off the chain and has nothing to do with a withdrawal, which happens entirely on Arbitrum.

Why a Withdrawal Reverts When the Gas Looked Fine

There is a failure here that produces a genuinely confusing experience: the transaction reverts, the wallet had plenty of ETH, and nothing about the position or the pool was wrong. The cause is specific to how this chain prices things. Every Arbitrum transaction pays for its own execution and, folded into the same gas figure, for publishing its data back to Ethereum. That second component is priced off Ethereum's congestion rather than Arbitrum's, and it is not stable. Measured across a week of real withdrawals it sat low almost all of the time and spiked by a factor of fifty at the extreme.

The consequence is that a gas estimate is only accurate for the conditions it was taken in. Get a quote while Ethereum is quiet, sign it a few minutes later into a busy stretch, and the limit you approved no longer covers the transaction. It runs out partway through and reverts, which looks nothing like a gas problem from the outside.

This has been going on for a long time, and it catches every kind of liquidity provider equally, whether the position sits idle or takes swaps all day. The single best-ranking answer to it anywhere is a Uniswap bug report from 2021 whose accepted resolution was to raise the gas limit tenfold and try again, and that advice still works. It is not documented on any competing tool page. The practical version: if a withdrawal reverts and you know the position is fine, raise the limit generously rather than hunting for a deeper cause.

Emptying a Position Is Not the Same as Closing It

Taking all the liquidity out of a concentrated position and destroying the token that represents it are two different operations, and almost nobody performs the second. Across every Arbitrum withdrawal we sampled that reduced a position to zero, the count that went on to burn the NFT was zero. Not a low proportion: none of them. Those wallets are all carrying an empty position that still occupies storage, still appears in every position list, and will never do anything again.

Taking everything out here burns it, which is a deliberate choice and one you should make knowingly rather than discover afterwards. The upside is a clean wallet and reclaimed storage. The cost is that the token ID is retired for good, so there is no coming back to that specific position later. Withdrawing 99% instead sidesteps the whole question: the position stays alive at its original bounds, ready to be topped up whenever you want, and the difference in what you receive is negligible.

None of this touches v2, where there is no NFT to reason about at all. The LP tokens are redeemed against the pair's reserves, and the pair goes on trading with whoever else is providing to it.

What Comes Back, and Why It Is Often One Token

The review separates principal from fees because on a concentrated position they behave differently and frequently arrive in different shapes. Principal is whatever the market left the position holding. A price still sitting between your bounds means both sides come back; a price that escaped them means the pool converted the position into a single asset on its way past, and that asset is what you receive. Slightly under 60% of real Arbitrum withdrawals fall into the second category, so a single-token payout is the common outcome rather than a warning sign.

Fees are separate and less predictable than most explanations suggest. Around two thirds of out-of-range withdrawals still paid fees in both tokens, because the position earned them while it was active. The remaining third paid nothing, most often because those fees had already been collected in an earlier transaction. Anyone telling you a withdrawal always returns fees in both tokens is describing the majority case as though it were a rule.

Which asset your principal came back as also tells you what happened while you were not watching. All quote asset means the price climbed through your upper bound and the pool sold your token the whole way up. All token means it fell through the lower one and the pool bought. Once you are out, adding liquidity opens a fresh position at whatever the price is then.