openzeppelin-contracts-upgradeable VS openzeppelin-contracts

v4.8.2 of OpenZeppelin contracts and contracts-upgradeable bug fix for ERC721Consecutive that could cause a balance overflow when _mintConsecutive was used for batches of size 1 breaking changes to ERC721: the internal function _beforeTokenTransfer will no longer update balances when batchSize is greater than 1

Yeah. That restriction is coming from a utility. There are options to modify the owner through transfer ownership on the `OwnableUpgradable` contract. You can also use the `reinitializer' modifier to create your own re-init logic.

Most smart contracts developers have used Openzeppelin/contracts. Those developers dabbling in Upgradeable smart contracts use its sister project Openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable. The two are the same albeit the constructor in the contract is replaced by the initializer.

Here’s a few references: - https://openzeppelin.com/contracts/ - https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts-upgradeable (highly recommended)

https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts-upgra...

For KYC you'll need to implement your own ERC20 compatible token with some checks in the transfer functions. The CMTA is the Swiss contract reference and proposes one:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0 pragma solidity ^0.8.20; import "https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/v5.0.0/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20.sol"; interface Sfs {     function register(address _recipient) external returns (uint256 tokenId); } contract ModeToken is ERC20 {     address feeReceiver = msg.sender;     constructor() ERC20("ModeTokenSFSTest", "SFST2") { //Example amount to mint our ERC20         _mint(msg.sender, 1000 10 * 18);   // This is the SFS contract address on testnet Sfs sfsContract = Sfs(0xBBd707815a7F7eb6897C7686274AFabd7B579Ff6); //Registers this contract and assigns the NFT //to the deployer of this contract sfsContract.register(msg.sender);     } }

Lets look the events of Open Zeppelin’s ERC20 token contract:

ERC-777 is difficult to implement properly, due to its susceptibility to different forms of attack(opens in a new tab). It is recommended to use ERC-20 instead. This page remains as a historical archive.