[BUG] The issue pertaining to transitioning from an ERC20 pointer to a CW20 contract

[dto-simba]

Chain ID
atlantic-2 & pacific-1

Describe the bug
After creating a standard ERC20 token on EVM, the pointer converts to a CW20 contract. The invocation of the "send" method on the CW20 contract fails.

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. ERC20 address '0xf65F985ccBAB8aFaA34a8E15ddd070c0A29C2a51'
2. Pointer cw20 address 'sei1r47t0rpwnm8uukmwr9c2rfxzxz73ntvenkp570s5y0p8gyamtxrqp2jj0c'
3. See error
   Invocation of the 'send' method

Screenshots

[philipsu522]

@dto-simba this seems like an issue with your account sequence number. Typically this can happen if a previous tx has failed. Is this still happening?

[philipsu522]

Closing for now, feel free to reopen if you're still seeing issues

[dto-simba]

@dto-simba this seems like an issue with your account sequence number. Typically this can happen if a previous tx has failed. Is this still happening?

It's not the nonce problem. I changed several addresses and got the same problem.

[cordt-sei]

Confirmed on my end and tested fuirther, seems like an issue using pointers through contracts.

 # seid tx wasm execute sei1u9ftyhe5sszx9ghr7ae75ak05j86mme0xlzr0n4g0aa45hry5s0qlvr5nw \
'{"send":{"contract":"sei1v9hwx2zelwu9lha3al5d92d7u9hu7dc8naappzc7j3rl7uxw6xfs9vecvm","amount":"10","msg":"eyJzdGFrZSI6IHt9fQ=="}}' \
--from mine \
--chain-id atlantic-2 \
--gas 200000 \
--fees 500000usei \
--node https://rpc-testnet.sei-apis.com \
--broadcast-mode block
Enter keyring passphrase:
{"body":{"messages":[{"@type":"/cosmwasm.wasm.v1.MsgExecuteContract","sender":"sei1wev8ptzj27aueu04wgvvl4gvurax6rj5yrag90","contract":"sei1u9ftyhe5sszx9ghr7ae75ak05j86mme0xlzr0n4g0aa45hry5s0qlvr5nw","msg":{"send":{"contract":"sei1v9hwx2zelwu9lha3al5d92d7u9hu7dc8naappzc7j3rl7uxw6xfs9vecvm","amount":"10","msg":"eyJzdGFrZSI6IHt9fQ=="}},"funds":[]}],"memo":"","timeout_height":"0","extension_options":[],"non_critical_extension_options":[]},"auth_info":{"signer_infos":[],"fee":{"amount":[{"denom":"usei","amount":"500000"}],"gas_limit":"200000","payer":"","granter":""}},"signatures":[]}

confirm transaction before signing and broadcasting [y/N]: y
code: 5
codespace: wasm
data: ""
events:
- attributes:
  - index: true
    key: c3BlbmRlcg==
    value: c2VpMXdldjhwdHpqMjdhdWV1MDR3Z3Z2bDRndnVyYXg2cmo1eXJhZzkw
  - index: true
    key: YW1vdW50
    value: NTAwMDAwdXNlaQ==
  type: coin_spent
- attributes:
  - index: true
    key: ZmVl
    value: NTAwMDAwdXNlaQ==
  - index: true
    key: ZmVlX3BheWVy
    value: c2VpMXdldjhwdHpqMjdhdWV1MDR3Z3Z2bDRndnVyYXg2cmo1eXJhZzkw
  type: tx
- attributes:
  - index: true
    key: YWNjX3NlcQ==
    value: c2VpMXdldjhwdHpqMjdhdWV1MDR3Z3Z2bDRndnVyYXg2cmo1eXJhZzkwLzE5
  type: tx
- attributes:
  - index: true
    key: c2lnbmF0dXJl
    value: TmxYbHJkQWY0NFU1QmV0UnFjckJaQ25aMXl2SE9ZT2Y4eTFzNGZMSGhDOVVjcStaejBIR0R6UUx0OUkxMEFiN0ZWQTlHanlFeEFVb1YxOGV6VTloU3c9PQ==
  type: tx
- attributes:
  - index: true
    key: ZXZtX2FkZHI=
    value: MHg0ZTFhZTYwMTc5OTcxMjhENDIxMDcwNGZCZTMxZDkwMzYyRjgxODFD
  - index: true
    key: c2VpX2FkZHI=
    value: c2VpMXdldjhwdHpqMjdhdWV1MDR3Z3Z2bDRndnVyYXg2cmo1eXJhZzkw
  type: signer
gas_used: "142316"
gas_wanted: "200000"
height: "114566417"
info: ""
logs: []
raw_log: 'failed to execute message; message index: 0: Generic error: Querier contract
  error: codespace: undefined, code: 1: execute wasm contract failed'
timestamp: ""
tx: null
txhash: 020D157A8A5E17C83E670B0BBC2531CB117FD49C19F33E83B4F8C953A385851F

[codchen]

@dto-simba is it possible for you to share the contract source used here? It would help us with root causing the issue

[ARitz-Cracker]

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

contract ERC20 {
    string public name = "Seipex Credits";
    string public symbol = "SPEX";
    uint8 public decimals = 18;
    uint256 public totalSupply;

    mapping(address => uint256) public balanceOf;
    mapping(address => mapping(address => uint256)) public allowance;

    event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);
    event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value);

    constructor() {
        totalSupply = 420_000_000 * 10 ** uint256(decimals);
        balanceOf[msg.sender] = totalSupply;
        emit Transfer(address(0), msg.sender, totalSupply);
    }

    function transfer(address _to, uint256 _value) public returns (bool success) {
        require(_to != address(0), "Invalid address");
        require(balanceOf[msg.sender] >= _value, "Insufficient balance");

        balanceOf[msg.sender] -= _value;
        balanceOf[_to] += _value;

        emit Transfer(msg.sender, _to, _value);
        return true;
    }

    function approve(address _spender, uint256 _value) public returns (bool success) {
        require(_spender != address(0), "Invalid address");

        allowance[msg.sender][_spender] = _value;
        emit Approval(msg.sender, _spender, _value);
        return true;
    }

    function transferFrom(address _from, address _to, uint256 _value) public returns (bool success) {
        require(_to != address(0), "Invalid address");
        require(balanceOf[_from] >= _value, "Insufficient balance");
        require(allowance[_from][msg.sender] >= _value, "Allowance exceeded");

        balanceOf[_from] -= _value;
        balanceOf[_to] += _value;
        allowance[_from][msg.sender] -= _value;

        emit Transfer(_from, _to, _value);
        return true;
    }
}

[dssei]

@dto-simba we think that possible issue cause is the lack of wasm contract association to an EVM address, that is required when send method is translated to the EVM transfer.

Could you please associate contract address as:

seid tx evm associate-contract-address <wasm_contract_address_that_implements_receive> --from <sei_address> --fees 20000usei -b block

and then re-invoke the pointer contract?

[cordt-sei]

Could you please associate contract address as:

Wait.. that's the purpose of the associated contract addresses? Is this written anywhere?

[dssei]

Could you please associate contract address as:

Wait.. that's the purpose of the associated contract addresses? Is this written anywhere?

For this specific case of sending funds to a contract address, contract address has to have associated EVM address, similar to what we have for regular addresses.
We constantly working on improving the documentation and will cover this case soon.