Add liquidity fails on Uniswap V3 for ERC20PresetFixedSupply contract that burns during a transfer

Support
1

I’m unable to add liquidity on Uniswap V3 for an ERC20PresetFixedSupply contract that performs a burn during a transfer.

The following error shows in the dev tools console when the ‘Add’ button is pressed:

Error: cannot estimate gas; transaction may fail or may require manual gas limit (error={"code":-32603,"message":"execution reverted: M0","data":{"originalError":{"code":3,"data":"0x08c379a0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000024d30000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000","message":"execution reverted: M0"}}}, method="estimateGas", transaction={"from":"0x78FC40ca8A23cf02654d4A5638Ba4d71BAcaa965","to":"0xC36442b4a4522E871399CD717aBDD847Ab11FE88","value":{"type":"BigNumber","hex":"0x7e38605822f1"},"data":"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","accessList":null}, code=UNPREDICTABLE_GAS_LIMIT, version=providers/5.2.0)
    at e.value (index.ts:213)
    at e.value (index.ts:225)
    at ae (json-rpc-provider.ts:76)
    at r.<anonymous> (json-rpc-provider.ts:512)
    at c (runtime.js:63)
    at Generator._invoke (runtime.js:293)
    at Generator.throw (runtime.js:118)
    at u (4.499580c4.chunk.js:2)
(anonymous) | @ | index.tsx:279

This works fine on Uniswap V2, so I’m not sure if it’s a issue with V3 specifically, or some sort of bug or compatibility issue between V3 and OpenZeppelin Contracts.

:1234: Code to reproduce

pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/presets/ERC20PresetFixedSupply.sol";

contract Foo is ERC20PresetFixedSupply {
    constructor() ERC20PresetFixedSupply("Foo", "FOO", 100 * 10 ** decimals(), _msgSender()) {
    }

    function _transfer(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) internal virtual override {
        super._transfer(sender, recipient, amount);
        _burn(recipient, 1);
    }
}

:computer: Environment

Truffle 5.3.14

2

Any ideas from the OpenZeppelin team regarding this?

3

Someone going to answer this from OpenZeppelin??

4

Sorry we missed this. It seems this is a fee-on-transfer token which as far as I know are not supported on Uniswap v3, although I am not an expert on Uniswap.

Have you tried if this works when you remove the burn on transfer?

1 Like
5

Yes, it works if the burn on transfer is removed. Would this confirm that it's due to V3 not supporting fee on transfer, then?

6

As far as I can tell, it's due to the fee on transfer. Someone more knowledgeable on Uniswap V3 liquidity provision might be able to say for sure.

1 Like
7

Confirmed in the issue I raised on GitHub. It's definitely due to the lack of fee-on-transfer support.