How can i set 2 max supply's in a ERC721 - solidity

I have a problem. The problem is that i want a max mint supply for the whitelist sale and public sale. So for example;
In total i have 10.000 NFT's. There will be an whitelist sale and a public sale. For the whitelist sale i have 2.000 wallet addresses, but i only want them to be able to mint 1.500 NFT's. and in the public sale i want the remaining 8.500 NFT's to be sold.
I already tried somethings with the normal maxsupply but can't figure it out. I want a max mint per wallet like 10 and cant seem to limit the supply to 1500 for only the whitelist
Does anyone can explain this to me or have a code example?

I don't recommend limiting your whitelist per-wallet minting amount (you want to mint out, don't you?!), but I understand the reasons why you might. I'll provide both options. All code is abbreviated for brevity sake:
*Note 1: We will be using OpenZeppelin Utilities - Counters for tracking minted progress. You can also consider using totalSupply(), however, if burned tokens are a concern totalSupply() will decrement and throw off your count, whereas Counters will not.
Note 2: This assumes you're whitelist occurs before public and that you're not also juggling a reserve count as well - additional checks and counters would be required for that.
Note 3: This covers ONLY the check for limiting whitelist; you will obviously also need additional checks for valid whitelist account, sufficient payment, etc.
Limit Whitelist Total Supply
...
import "#openzeppelin/contracts/utils/Counters.sol";
...
error ExceededWhitelistSupply();
...
using Counters for Counters.Counter;
uint256 public maxSupply = 10000;
uint256 public maxWhitelistSupply = 1500;
Counters.Counter private totalWhitelistSupply;
...
function mintWhitelist(uint256 _qty) external payable {
if ( totalWhitelistSupply.current() + _qty > maxWhitelistSupply ) revert ExceededWhitelistSupply();
for (uint256 i = 0; i < _qty; i++) {
totalWhitelistSupply.increment();
}
_mint(msg.sender, _qty, '', true);
}
Limit Wallet && Limit Whitelist Total Supply
...
import "#openzeppelin/contracts/utils/Counters.sol";
...
error ExceededWhitelistSupply();
error ExceededMaxPerWallet();
...
using Counters for Counters.Counter;
uint256 public maxSupply = 10000;
uint256 public maxWhitelistSupply = 1500;
uint256 public maxWhitelistPerWallet = 10;
Counters.Counter private totalWhitelistSupply;
mapping(address => uint256) public whitelistMintedAmount;
...
function mintWhitelist(uint256 _qty) external payable {
if ( whitelistMintedAmount[msg.sender] + _qty > maxWhitelistPerWallet ) revert ExceededMaxPerWallet();
if ( totalWhitelistSupply.current() + _qty > maxWhitelistSupply ) revert ExceededWhitelistSupply();
for (uint256 i = 0; i < _qty; i++) {
totalWhitelistSupply.increment();
}
whitelistMintedAmount[msg.sender] += _qty;
_mint(msg.sender, _qty, '', true);
}
Here, we've used mapping - good tutorial here - to track the number of NFTs that have been minted to this wallet (preferred method, as this won't be fooled by the account transferring NFTs out of the wallet and then minting more). If you want to go WAY down the rabbit hole, you can also look at trash-canning this whole approach and learn up on this approach for handling your whitelist.
Keep in mind that there are more checks and balances that you'll need to add (e.g., visualizing this in the front end of your dApp to avoid minting when they shouldn't be able to, additional validation layers in your mint functions, etc.), but this should provide you with the core pieces needed for limiting by a max wallet and max supply. I apologize for any code errors - this is my first StackOverflow answer and the short-handing and readability of the code is a bit difficult to error check.

Have a whitelistMaxSupply
Have a getMaxSupply function
Have a finishWhitelist function
Have a maxSupply
Unless whitelist finished, getMaxSupply will return whitelistMaxSupply, after finished, it will return maxSupply
Profit
There are many ways to solve your problem, this is just the first one that came to my mind
function getMaxSupply() view public returns(uint256){
if(whitelistFinished){
return maxSupply;
}
return whitelistMaxSupply;
}
function finishWhitelist() public{
whitelistFinished = true;
}

Related

Smart Contracts - How to agree on a value between parties?

I am writing a smart contract in Solidity about co-selling an NFT.
When initializing the contract, a division for the benefits is chosen by one of the co-seller. For example, three co-seller could choose 50%, 25%, 25%.
My goal is that each co-seller must agree on the division value before the selling can take place. As I want to do it "on-chain", I'm wondering what is the best way to do it.
Include a function in the smart contract that set an "agreed" boolean for each co-seller
Ask the co-seller to sign the current repartition and send it to the smart contract
Other
As a bonus, I'm also wondering what to do in case of a disagreement. Is there any known pattern for negotiation of values "on-chain" ?
Thanks in advance for your answers :)
let me give this a shot:
contract NFT_Price_Agreement {
bool reachedAgreement = false;
uint numParties = 3;
uint numSigned = 0;
uint totalVal = 0;
uint nftPrice = 1000000000000000000; // = 1 ether
mapping(address => uint) public nftStake;
function makeReq(uint reqStake) public {
uint stake = nftPrice * (reqStake / 100);
totalVal += stake; // to make sure 100% ownership at the end
nftStake[msg.sender] = stake;
numSigned++;
}
function confirmReq() public {
require(numSigned == numParties, "Not everyone has agreed on what percent ownership.");
require(totalVal == nftPrice);
reachedAgreement = true;
}
}
While this will currently yield an error, this is the general idea. To abort request and make a new one, you will just have to have a function that restates what your mappings are to 0 for their requested stake and decrement 1 from numSigned. Even though this code has some issues, this is the general idea.

How can I update the price of Matic on realtime inside a smart contract

I'm working on a smart contract that allows users to pay for monthly subscriptions like Netflix, Amazon, etc...
Assuming that each subscription costs 20$ per month which is equivalent to 22 Matic at the time of writing this post.
During the time of the subscription, the user should pay 20$ per month with Matic, and its value will vary.
How can I update the monthly payment inside the smart contract so the subscriber will be able to pay each with the current value of MATIC not more not less? It's possible in solidity?
Or should I let the user pay his subscription manually each month based on the price of each subscription in dollars but with MATIC?
I tried to implement a solution with Tellor in my smart contract but I got stuck.
// smart contract subscription(part of it)
struct Subscription {
address payable subscriber;
uint start;
uint nextPayment;
bool activated;
}
/* nested mapping from address to id to Subscription */
mapping(address => mapping(uint => Subscription)) private AllSubscriptions;
/* Pay subcription every Month*/
function pay(uint256 planId)
external payable
onlyUsers()
{
Subscription storage submitSubscription = AllSubscriptions[msg.sender][planId];
require(block.timestamp > submitSubscription.nextPayment, " Payement not due yet");
Plan storage plan = idToPlan[planId];
require(msg.value >= plan.monthlyPayment, " Monthly payment not correct");
emit PaymentSent(
payable(msg.sender),
payable(address(this)),
plan.monthlyPayment,
planId,
block.timestamp);
totalPaymentsPerWallet[msg.sender] += 1;
submitSubscription.nextPayment = submitSubscription.nextPayment + 4 weeks;
}
// UsingTellor functionnalities
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
import "usingtellor/contracts/UsingTellor.sol";
contract PriceContract is UsingTellor {
uint256 public btcPrice;
//This Contract now has access to all functions in UsingTellor
constructor(address payable _tellorAddress) UsingTellor(_tellorAddress) public {}
function setBtcPrice() public {
bytes memory _b = abi.encode("SpotPrice",abi.encode("MATIC","USD"));
bytes32 _queryID = keccak256(_b);
bool _didGet;
uint256 _timestamp;
bytes _value;
(_didGet, _value, _timestamp) = getDataBefore(_queryID);
uint256 maticPrice = abi.decode(_value,(uint256));
require(token.transferFrom(subscriber,address(this),cost/maticPrice));
}
}
You can use any of the Chainlink data feeds that return the current price of MATIC in USD. It's a free service, there's no LINK payment for data feeds.
Docs and code example: https://docs.chain.link/docs/get-the-latest-price/

gas estimation errored with message: "execution reverted: Below agreed payment"

I am having issues when trying to use the Chainlink random number generator and deploying to Rinkeby. Relevant code pieces are the following:
Constructor from the importing contract (should be working fine).
// RandomNumberConsumer parameters for RINKEBY testnet
address _vrfCoordinator = 0xb3dCcb4Cf7a26f6cf6B120Cf5A73875B7BBc655B;
address _link = 0x01BE23585060835E02B77ef475b0Cc51aA1e0709;
bytes32 _keyHash = 0x2ed0feb3e7fd2022120aa84fab1945545a9f2ffc9076fd6156fa96eaff4c1311;
uint256 _fee = 0.1 * 10 ** 18; // 0.1 LINK
constructor() RandomNumberConsumer(_vrfCoordinator, _link, _keyHash, _fee) {}
RandomNumberConsumer.sol. As specified in the chainlink docs, with a few tweaks needed for my approach.
pragma solidity ^0.8.7;
import "#chainlink/contracts/src/v0.8/VRFConsumerBase.sol";
import "#openzeppelin/contracts/access/Ownable.sol";
import "hardhat/console.sol";
contract RandomNumberConsumer is VRFConsumerBase, Ownable{
// Variables
bytes32 internal s_keyHash;
uint256 internal s_fee;
uint256 private constant ROLL_IN_PROGRESS = 150;
mapping(bytes32 => address) private s_rollers;
mapping(address => uint256) private s_results;
//address vrfCoordinator = 0x3d2341ADb2D31f1c5530cDC622016af293177AE0;
//address link = 0xb0897686c545045aFc77CF20eC7A532E3120E0F1;
// Events
event DiceRolled(bytes32 indexed requestId, address indexed roller);
event DiceLanded(bytes32 indexed requestId, uint256 indexed result);
/**
* Constructor inherits VRFConsumerBase
*
* Network: Rinkeby
* Chainlink VRF Coordinator address: 0xb3dCcb4Cf7a26f6cf6B120Cf5A73875B7BBc655B
* LINK token address: 0x01BE23585060835E02B77ef475b0Cc51aA1e0709
* Key Hash: 0x2ed0feb3e7fd2022120aa84fab1945545a9f2ffc9076fd6156fa96eaff4c1311
*/
constructor(address vrfCoordinator, address link, bytes32 keyHash, uint256 fee)
VRFConsumerBase(vrfCoordinator, link){
s_keyHash = keyHash;
s_fee = fee;
}
// Functions
function rollDice(address roller) public onlyOwner returns (bytes32 requestId){
console.log("RNG Contract address",address(this));
// Checking LINK balance
require(LINK.balanceOf(address(this)) >= s_fee, "Not enough LINK in contract.");
// Checking if roller has already rolled dice since each roller can only ever be assigned to a single house. TODO: this can be changed
require(s_results[roller] == 0, "Already rolled");
// Requesting randomness
requestId = requestRandomness(s_keyHash, s_fee); // Error is happening here!
// Storing requestId and roller address
s_rollers[requestId] = roller;
// Emitting event to signal rolling of dice
s_results[roller] = ROLL_IN_PROGRESS;
emit DiceRolled(requestId, roller);
}
// fulfillRandomness is a special function defined within the VRFConsumerBase contract that our contract extends from.
// The coordinator sends the result of our generated randomness back to fulfillRandomness.
function fulfillRandomness(bytes32 requestId, uint256 randomness) override internal {
// Transform the result to a number between 0 and 100, both included. Using % as modulo
require(randomness!=0, "Modulo zero!");
uint256 d100Value = (randomness % 100) + 1; // +1 so s_results[player] can be 0 if no dice has been rolled
// Assign the transformed value to the address in the s_results mapping variable.
s_results[s_rollers[requestId]] = d100Value;
// Emit a DiceLanded event.
emit DiceLanded(requestId, d100Value);
}
// playerWins determines whether the player wins or lose the battle, based on a fixed chance (0-100)
function playerWins (address player, uint8 chance) internal view returns (bool wins){
require(s_results[player] != 0, "Player has not engaged in battle!");
require(s_results[player] != ROLL_IN_PROGRESS, "Battle in progress!");
return s_results[player] <= (chance + 1); //+1 because dice is 1-101
}
}
RNG call from the importing contract(simplified to relevant part only. _player address is working correctly).
address _player = ownerOf(_monId);
rollDice(_player);
I have the certainty that the error occurs inside the rollDice function, more specifically in the call to requestRandomness. Apart from that, I cannot seem to find why the error is hapenning, nor any references to the error message (Below agreed payment) inside any of the dependency contracts. Cannot find any references online either.
Any help is appreciated, thanks.
Below agreed payment error message comes from the sufficientLINK modifier of the VRFCoordinator.sol contract. You can see it here and here.
Double-check the constructor parameters, especially the fee value.
Also, make sure to fund your smart contract with Rinkeby LINK tokens which you can claim from the faucet.

How to set msg.value in Remix IDE

This is probably an easy error I'm missing, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to set the msg.value variable in this contract. I've read online that this value is the amount of wei associated with the transaction, but how do I, as a caller of the contract, specifically set that value. Here's the contract I'm struggling with.
pragma solidity 0.8.7;
contract VendingMachine {
// Declare state variables of the contract
address public owner;
mapping (address => uint) public cupcakeBalances;
// When 'VendingMachine' contract is deployed:
// 1. set the deploying address as the owner of the contract
// 2. set the deployed smart contract's cupcake balance to 100
constructor() {
owner = msg.sender;
cupcakeBalances[address(this)] = 100;
}
// Allow the owner to increase the smart contract's cupcake balance
function refill(uint amount) public {
require(msg.sender == owner, "Only the owner can refill.");
cupcakeBalances[address(this)] += amount;
}
// Allow anyone to purchase cupcakes
function purchase(uint amount) public payable {
require(msg.value >= amount * 1 ether, "You must pay at least 1 ETH per cupcake");
require(cupcakeBalances[address(this)] >= amount, "Not enough cupcakes in stock to complete this purchase");
cupcakeBalances[address(this)] -= amount;
cupcakeBalances[msg.sender] += amount;
}
}
Every time I enter an amount, I'm getting thrown the error that says "You must pay at least 1 ETH per cupcake"
There's nowhere for me to specifically enter in a value for how much I'm going to pay for this, any help would be great
here's what I'm able to input when I deploy the contract on Remix
Top of the Deploy Button you can see the Value Field :
when you want to call the purchase , first fill the value field and select Ether after that calls your function.
I try this way with your code and it works fine.

Best memory practices and optimizations for Solidity gas fees

I have a state variable in my smart contract called "_ownerAddresses". It is an array of addresses. In one of my functions, I remove addresses from this array depending on a condition. I was wondering what is the best approach to doing this in a fast and memory-efficient way. Should I delete addresses while in the for loop and shrink the array? Should I create a new storage array that just adds the addresses I am keeping and then assign "_ownerAddresses" to this new array? Here is the excerpt of code:
struct Sub {
uint256 amount;
uint256 createdTime;
}
mapping(address => Sub) private _addrBalances;
address[] private _ownerAddresses;
uint MONTH = 30 days;
uint256 private _totalSupply;
function expireAccounts() external onlyOwner(_owner) {
address[] storage _ownersLeft;
for (uint i = 0; i < _ownerAddresses.length; i++) {
if ((_addrBalances[_ownerAddresses[i]].createdTime + MONTH) >= block.timestamp) {
_totalSupply -= _addrBalances[_ownerAddresses[i]].amount;
_addrBalances[_ownerAddresses[i]].amount = 0;
_addrBalances[_ownerAddresses[i]].createdTime = 0;
} else {
_ownersLeft.push(_ownerAddresses[i]);
}
}
_ownerAddresses = _ownersLeft;
}
Any input would be great. Thanks!
Once my team conducted a study of the efficiency of EVM in processing iterative cycles - the results are reflected in the article https://habr.com/ru/company/raiffeisenbank/blog/354122/ (unfortunately, in Russian). In short, with the number of iterations over 1000, the cost of even the simplest operations will reach millions of gas units. Therefore, if the size of the array is several thousand, then the cost of execution expireAccounts() can become very high, and there is even a risk that it will exceed the gas limit per block and will not be executed at all.
Therefore, instead of concentrating the "expire" functionality in a single function for all accounts, I would insert it into the functions for processing the single accounts. Most likely, in this case, you can also refuse the _ownerAddresses array.