Hi All,
I’ve deployed an upgradeable XRC20 token contract (using OpenZeppelin UUPS proxy pattern) with the following details:
Token name: FDPConnect (FDP)
Proxy contract: 0x8597a460b3d9c8c960c529ac58ce2f5dfc2253cf
Total supply minted: 1,000,000,000 FDP
Proxy contract (token address):
https://testnet.xdcscan.com/token/0x8597a460b3d9c8c960c529ac58ce2f5dfc2253cf
https://testnet.xdcscan.com/address/0x831d7b66878abe3fb95464e1d93d2d72e3dce24a#code
Questions:-
Is it correct to mint the entire total supply (1,000,000,000 FDP) in one transaction for an upgradeable XRC20 token?
Are there any best practices or potential issues with this approach on XDC?
Is the token contract setup and verification flow (proxy + implementation) correct as shown on XDCScan?
Contract source:
I used OpenZeppelin’s upgradeable contracts, with AccessControl for admin/minter roles, and no capped supply logic.
Any feedback or confirmation would be appreciated!
Discussion (1)
Minting the full 1,000,000,000 FDP in one transaction is perfectly fine and a common practice, especially when using upgradeable contracts.
Your use of OpenZeppelin’s upgradeable pattern with AccessControl looks good and follows standard practices. Not having a capped supply isn’t an issue as long as it suits your tokenomics.
I noticed only the implementation contract is verified on XDCScan — the proxy contract (token address) isn’t verified yet. Verifying that as well would help with transparency, but overall, the setup seems good.