Topic: Can someone explain this transaction? (Read 114 times)
And what is not clear here is the usual transaction that was successful. So I personally don't see anything wrong with that. So you need to be very attentive to all addresses. To avoid similar problems in the future.
The valid reason.
Could be a bridge, because of how the bridgework. You are burning the token from other chains to the default address (0x0000), and then you're claiming the token on other chains. If you see the address of this transaction, not only minted but also the address burn a token.
So, could be a bridge contract.
Maybe one of the reasons, because I once did a bridge on an arbitrum platform to return WETH L2 returns to L1 of the ETH network, after submitting the bridge process to L1 an automatic transaction will be made to address 0x0000 before WETH landing on etherscan. Could be a bridge, because of how the bridgework. You are burning the token from other chains to the default address (0x0000), and then you're claiming the token on other chains. If you see the address of this transaction, not only minted but also the address burn a token.
So, could be a bridge contract.
Why is it like this huh? I have also experienced a strange transaction, a token only has a total supply of for example 100 million, but then someone sells 1000 trillion the token, how can that be?
Can you show documentary evidence of your words so that you can specifically analyze this situation? At the same time, I can only make an assumption that it is necessary to take into account not only total supply, but also maximum supply. In this case, we will be able to calculate how many more tokens mint can have with a null address.
Try checking the following 2 token contracts, they only have a total supply of 10 million and 80 million, but suddenly there is a transaction that sells more than 1 trillion tokens;
https://www.bscscan.com/token/0x4af66de151f3591028356d9765d827ab8e912719
https://www.bscscan.com/token/0x61deebfdedd31f62be6b5b6a6dfbcb2bd8cb3b6c
this is proof of transaction on dextools
https://www.dextools.io/app/bsc/pair-explorer/0x895023b633a331af56984a809a5fc5ffc8d4d0ee
The valid reason.
Could be a bridge, because of how the bridgework. You are burning the token from other chains to the default address (0x0000), and then you're claiming the token on other chains. If you see the address of this transaction, not only minted but also the address burn a token.
So, could be a bridge contract.
Could be a bridge, because of how the bridgework. You are burning the token from other chains to the default address (0x0000), and then you're claiming the token on other chains. If you see the address of this transaction, not only minted but also the address burn a token.
So, could be a bridge contract.
Why don't you check the address before?
I clearly mentioned I don't know shit about what it does. That was the whole point of this post to ask others what's happening.
No need to be a douchebag.
Why is it like this huh? I have also experienced a strange transaction, a token only has a total supply of for example 100 million, but then someone sells 1000 trillion the token, how can that be?
Can you show documentary evidence of your words so that you can specifically analyze this situation? At the same time, I can only make an assumption that it is necessary to take into account not only total supply, but also maximum supply. In this case, we will be able to calculate how many more tokens mint can have with a null address.
Why is it like this huh? I have also experienced a strange transaction, a token only has a total supply of for example 100 million, but then someone sells 1000 trillion the token, how can that be?
Why don't you check the address before? This is null address related with mint and burn address. If you are opening the null (you know that as burn address and you will be seeing a small notice above it)
https://etherscan.io/address/0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I will quote it here
This address is not only acting as a burn address (default address) but this addess can also act as a minting address to mine the new token. That transactions means if new USDP minted from the null address aka default address and it was being sent to the binance.
https://etherscan.io/address/0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I will quote it here
Quote
This address is not owned by any user, is often associated with token burn & mint/genesis events and used as a generic null address
This address is not only acting as a burn address (default address) but this addess can also act as a minting address to mine the new token. That transactions means if new USDP minted from the null address aka default address and it was being sent to the binance.
Hey,
I was just looking at Binance's ERC20 Wallet and found this transaction where Binance address got $4,517,419.50 worth of PAX Dollar from Null Address/Dead Address.
TXID: https://etherscan.io/tx/0xf9dab218353acad869ecf74bed78733f0e98fe444d3449dbbf19b9c697b7ed49/advanced
How is this even possible? I thought you can't get something back from a dead address.
If you have some information on this, please help me understand this tx.
I was just looking at Binance's ERC20 Wallet and found this transaction where Binance address got $4,517,419.50 worth of PAX Dollar from Null Address/Dead Address.
TXID: https://etherscan.io/tx/0xf9dab218353acad869ecf74bed78733f0e98fe444d3449dbbf19b9c697b7ed49/advanced
How is this even possible? I thought you can't get something back from a dead address.
If you have some information on this, please help me understand this tx.
Jump to: