0

I sent tokens to my contract address instead of to my myetherwallet address from an address that the tokens were previously sent some time ago. Now I have no access to the amount sent to this address. The total amount of tokens was created by this contract. Can someone please help by telling me how to get it out of the contract back into myetherwallet. Thanks.

Query by ethplorer, etherscan, ethersweep produce the same result. The myetherwallet address shows the information below without the amount sent to the contract address although it is the contract address that is imported into myetherwallet.

I have to query the contract address separately to see the amount that was incorrectly sent to it.

The contract doesn’t have a private key, so I’m at a loss with how to transfer back from the contract to myetherwallet to correct the error.

0xdc22394annnnnnnnnncead6c8639d31nnnnnnnnn (myetherwallet showing all balances except the amount transferred to the contract by error)

Token Units GGLN 985,000 LTPB 100,000

0xb0ggggggggggggg8cd79e1bf900619gggggggggg (contract showing only the amount that was sent to it erroneously)

Token Units GGLN 10,000

  • 1
    do you have the contract code or contract deployed address to help you better ? – Noushad Mohamed Jun 1 at 4:47
  • I have the contract creator account & private key, the contract account, and the source code. created by 0x30013f604738C7DffACD5BF41C2F0378527882BD contract 0xb0DC7fdB068aBA78Cd79e1BF9006196fF3299C8f Source code etherscan.io/address/… – Troy Jun 1 at 17:28
0

It depends if the contract has a built-in function to send all tokens held by the contract to an address (presumably that only the contract creator can call) - I assume this isn't the case, otherwise you would've just done it, so they're probably lost forever my friend, sorry

  • Thanks for these comments. – Troy Jun 7 at 13:01
0

From glancing at the code and the transaction history, it looks like the tokens are burned.

The tokens that were originally yours were transferred to the custody of the contract itself at 0xb0DC7fdB068aBA78Cd79e1BF9006196fF3299C8f. So, 0xb0DC7fdB068aBA78Cd79e1BF9006196fF3299C8f would be the only transaction sender with the authority to move them.

Implicitly, the contract would need a method of starting the process. In other words, knowledge of how to spend its own funds. A contract cannot be made to do something it wasn't programmed to do. From eyeballing the contract I don't see any special function to kick that off.

It looks like those funds could be frozen because the contract owner is allowed to freeze an account, but it would be a symbolic gesture. The funds are already effectively frozen because the contract has no way to spend them.

As the contract owner, you could mint more supply, but since this is the first and only transaction and not off to a good start, I would suggest you abandon this contract.

You might consider a code review and audit, and a scripted deployment process. Regrettably, I don't have better news for you.

Hope it helps.

  • OK. I'll just call this 10M tokens a loss but the remainder all all good. I must have been asleep when I pasted the wrong address. – Troy Jun 7 at 13:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.