Your first SyncSwap exit usually goes wrong before you press Remove: you expect the assets you deposited, then discover that a liquidity position is a changing share of a pool. **syncswap** is a decentralised-exchange liquidity interface; an exit means redeeming that share for what the pool holds now, not reversing your original deposit. The verdict is simple: withdrawing proportionally is the clean exit; withdrawing one asset is an exit plus a trade, and the extra trade is where the avoidable cost begins.
This matters because “the withdrawal fee” is not a single published number. The cost is scattered across pool economics, router behaviour, and network execution. Put together as of 20 August 2026, the figures say that a standard Classic-pool exit has no separate percentage withdrawal charge stated in the protocol materials, while a one-token exit can incur the pool’s applicable swap fee on the conversion, plus the network fee for the transaction. Your real loss can still be much larger than either fee if prices moved while you provided liquidity.
LP tokens represent a pro-rata claim on pool reserves, redeemable for the underlying assets. That is the crucial denominator: if you burn 1% of all LP tokens outstanding, you receive roughly 1% of each asset currently held by that pool, subject to its mechanics and rounding. It is not “half your original token A and half your original token B”; it is your percentage of today’s reserves.
The numerical comparison starts with the documented Classic-pool fee split: 0.10% of each trade, or 10 basis points per 100 units traded. Of those 10 basis points, 7 go to liquidity providers and 3 to the protocol. On a 100,000-USDC trade through that specific Classic-pool schedule, that is 100 USDC in total: 70 USDC added for LPs and 30 USDC to the protocol. Those figures describe trading in a Classic pool, not a fee deducted merely because an LP redeems proportionally. SyncSwap’s liquidity documentation publishes both the 0.10% total and the 0.07%/0.03% division.
| Exit choice | What happens | Percentage trading cost created by the exit | What you receive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remove proportionally | Burn LP share | 0% conversion trade | Both pool assets in your current pool share |
| Remove then swap one side | Burn LP share, then trade one asset | One quoted swap fee, plus price impact | Your chosen asset after a separate trade |
| Single-asset removal | Burn LP share and convert internally | One embedded conversion at the pool’s applicable fee | One chosen asset |
The table is the decision, not just a description. If you can use both assets elsewhere, take the proportional withdrawal. It preserves optionality and lets you choose whether, when, and where to trade either side. A single-token result is convenient, but convenience does not erase the conversion; it hides it inside the unwind.
Aqua-pool contracts explicitly distinguish a normal burn, which returns proportional underlying assets, from burnSingle, which exchanges one pool asset for the other so the user receives only one token. In other words, the one-token button is economically a withdrawal plus a swap, even if it appears as one confirmation. The official Aqua pool contract reference documents that single-asset burn behaviour.
That comparison becomes more important because SyncSwap fees are not safely reducible to one universal tier. Classic and Stable pools can use fixed fees, while Aqua pools can use dynamic fees. The documented maximum tier is 10%, or 1 token out of every 10 tokens traded in the applicable direction; it is a ceiling, not a prediction for your exit. Directional fees can also make selling token A cost differently from selling token B. The protocol’s dynamic-fee specification confirms both the variable structure and the 10% maximum.
So compare the quote, not the label. If a proportional exit gives you 5 ETH and 15,000 USDC, the single-asset ETH option is not “5 ETH back.” It is 5 ETH plus the USDC side converted at the live pool price, after the applicable conversion fee and price impact. In a shallow or volatile pool, that conversion can cost more than the network fee by orders of magnitude. The visible amount-out and minimum-received figure are therefore more important than any generic fee table.
Leaving liquidity has three separate cost layers, and only one is a protocol percentage. First, the pool’s trading fees accumulated while you held the position are already reflected in the pool value; they are not a cash coupon you separately claim. Second, an optional or embedded one-token conversion uses the live fee and has price impact. Third, the wallet submits an on-chain transaction, so you pay the network execution fee in the gas token or an available gas-payment arrangement.
The bigger risk is inventory drift. If one asset rose relative to the other since you deposited, automated market making tends to leave the pool holding relatively more of the weaker asset and less of the stronger one than simply holding both outside the pool would have. That is impermanent loss, and it becomes realised when you exit. It is not a withdrawal fee, but it is often the number that decides whether leaving now is sensible.