Thanks Aditya - I appreciate the feedback and glad you liked it.

Thanks so much and congrats on your token. May I know the smart contract address so I can import the token in my wallet? Nice work : )

Thanks Somnath! 🤛

@BlockExplorerMedia I was inplementing your code at 1:03:45, but got the error message: TypeError: oceanToken.deployed is not a function at main (C:\Projects\erc-20-tutorial\ocean-token\scripts\deploy.js:8:20) at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:95:5) What might be the problem? Can somebody figure it out?

Hello bhai

How do i contact you?

Thanks for the kind words!

Thanks Bela, glad they're helpful!

Thanks Crypto Guy. Great work on your channel as well!

I don't remember the exact costs tbh but probably $1-2k when it was all said and done. Most expensive was the ERC20 contract deploy, followed by the liquidity pool. Website costs $0 (Netlify). Also, I deployed the smart contract twice because I made a fatal mistake the first time! Of course deployment costs should be much less now. Hope that helps.

@@BlockExplorerMedia What was the fatal mistake?

So far I've only done Ethereum, but the code would be the same for any EVM-compatible chain (such as Polygon). You would just create a network config specific to that chain in the Hardhat config file and then target that for your deploy. For something like Solana it would be totally different code and process though.

Thanks, I appreciate it! I don't have any courses at the moment but I've been thinking about creating one - will let you know.

Same, unsure what's goin on

Yes, exactly. I pinned a comment to the top explaining. A lot of people have been asking this. Thanks!

vs code

you can using sepolia for same

Rinkeby has now been turned into Sepolia by the same company “alchemy” so I just went ahead and used the sepolia test network

I don't remember exactly but the fee for deploying to testnet is nominal, and uses test Ether only. Deploying to mainnet will be more expensive.

@@BlockExplorerMedia how about BEP20 is it the same with Erc20 in terms of the cost of deploying to the mainnet?

I pinned a comment to the top of this video explaining how. Let me know if you have any other questions.

hey Hex - great question. so for the tokens that you want to make publicly available on the market, those should go to your wallet first (at the time of contract deployment) and then you would transfer those tokens from your wallet into liquidity pools, for example on Uniswap, to be made available for trading. the remaining 20% left unminted could be for miner rewards or any other utility that you can think of. at least that's how I've always done it. some tokens don't have any kind of time-based minting or mining rewards. so at the simplest, you could send yourself 100%, provide 20% of that as liquidity and keep the remaining 80%. hope this helps.

@@BlockExplorerMedia You just saved my life! Thats exactly what I was wanting to figure out. Thank you man, you got a subscriber!

You bet - thanks!!

​@@HexElementcan you guys teach me i will pay.

@@BlockExplorerMedia a quick one, have compiled as successful unfortunately on. Js test have only managed 3 passing and 4 failing. Where might I be wrong!!?. Thanks in advance

That's awesome...congrats!! I've been trying to think of ideas for some shorter videos - contract verification would be perfect. Will try to get that out soon!

How did you launch your token on Ethereum? Did you use remix and how much did the gas cost? Thanks 🙏

I can help

Sir can you teach me?

@HexElement congrats on your project, I'm stuck and struggling with .js test. My results are 3 pass, 4 fail. Could you help me somehow on this, thanks inadvance.

Thanks my friend. Happy to try and help as time allows, feel free to contact via email.

This error occurs when a contract is derived from two or more base contracts that have a function with the same name and input parameter types. In your case, it seems that you have defined the _mint function in your derived contract and also inherited it from one or more base contracts. To resolve this error, you need to override the _mint function in your derived contract to ensure that it has the same function signature as the base contract(s). This means that the function name, input parameter types, and return type must be exactly the same. Here's an example of how you can override the _mint function in your derived contract: javascript Copy code function _mint(address account, uint256 amount) public onlyOwner { require(account != address(0), "ERC20: mint to the zero address"); _totalSupply += amount; _balances[account] += amount; emit Transfer(address(0), account, amount); } This adds the onlyOwner modifier to restrict minting to the contract owner, but you can modify it as per your requirements. Just make sure that the function signature is the same as the base contract(s) to avoid the error.

Hi did you find solution ? thanks

​ It happens because of multiple references to the ERC20 contract (ERC20Capped & ERC20Burnable). If are talking about the _mint function (defined in both ERC20 and ERC20Capped contracts), you should override the function in your Token contract (add override(ERC20, ERC20Capped) to the _mint() signature - the order doesn't matter) and call super._mint(). The code will use the ERC20Capped function since we are using super and it's "closer" in the inheritance chain (you can also just use ERC20Capped._mint() explicitly). Hope it helped.

m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m8elhaialdzbcmQ.html&pp=ygUNbm9kZWpzIHZzY29kZQ%3D%3D

Check to make sure you have NodeJS installed on your machine first - that's what will give you npm. nodejs.org/en/download

Oh good catch! I wonder why the transaction is bundled like that. In the past the reward was always a separate transaction. Thanks for letting me know!

Please can you clarify, why do we need the mining reward? Just a little confused about the need for that part of the code.

I want to be clear that the mining reward part is totally optional! It is just an example of one way of generating new token supply into circulation. There are many different options here and you could also not have any supply-generating mechanism and mint all tokens up front. It's really up to the developer. Hope that helps!

Yeah I've been thinking about something like that to follow this one up with - thanks for the suggestion.

Added to my list of videos to research - thanks for the idea

@@BlockExplorerMedia thank you! I can’t find how to do this anywhere! I don’t want to rely on meta mask lol

Understand that...multisig is much more secure!