Metamask: gas cannot be evaluated when calling the draw function in a Solidity contract on a Polygon grid

Metamask: Unable to estimate gas when calling the “cancel” function in a Solidity contract on the Polygon network

As a blockchain-based smart contract developer, it is crucial to consider factors that can affect the performance and efficiency of your contracts. A key consideration is estimating gas consumption, especially when calling the “withdraw” function. In this article, we will see why Metamask may have issues calculating gas to withdraw funds from a Solidity contract on the Polygon network.

Why Metamask is Having Issues

Metamask is a popular platform that allows users to manage their cryptocurrency assets across multiple networks, including Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain (BSC), and Polygon. When calling the “Cancel” function in your Solidity contract on the Polygon network using Metamask, you may encounter issues with estimating gas consumption.

The reason for this issue lies in the way Solidity contracts are built and executed on the Polygon network. The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) is the virtual machine that runs Solidity code, but it is not the same as the EVM used on the Polygon network.

Gas Estimation and EVM Compatibility

Several factors are considered when calculating the gas consumption of a smart contract, including:

• Instruction Set: The instruction set architecture (ISA) of your contract, which defines the possible commands that can be executed.

• Code Optimization: How well your code is optimized for performance, including loop unwrapping and constant folding.

• Gas Cost: The estimated cost of each unit of gas in your local currency.

In a Solidity application, most functions are called using a “call” statement, which executes the function directly on the EVM. However, when using Metamask to call the “cancel” function on the Polygon network, you need to consider the following:

• Instruction Set: The Ethereum Instruction Set (EIS) is used on the Polygon network, but it is not the same as the EVM ISA.

• Gas Consumption: The gas consumption estimates for the “fetch” function differ from the EVM.

Limitations of Metamask

To overcome these challenges, Metamask offers several solutions:

• Using a custom gas estimation tool: You can use a third-party service that provides accurate gas estimation for Solidity contracts.

• Code Optimization Using Smart Contract Templates

  : Some services offer pre-optimized templates for common Solidity contracts that can help reduce gas consumption.

• Calling the “withdraw” function directly from Metamask: You can use the “eth_sendRawTransaction” method to send a transaction to the Polygon network and call the “withdraw” function of the contract.

Conclusion

While these challenges can be overcome using third-party tools or by optimizing your code, Metamask can have difficulty estimating gas consumption to withdraw funds from a Solidity contract on the Polygon network. If you are experiencing issues with gas estimation, consider looking for alternative solutions or contact Polygon Network Support.

Recommendations

To increase your chances of success, be sure to:

• Use a reliable gas estimation tool: Choose a service that provides accurate estimates for your Solidity contract.

• Optimize your code with smart contract templates: Use pre-optimized templates to reduce gas consumption.

• Call the “withdraw” function directly from Metamask: Use the “eth_sendRawTransaction” method to send the transaction and call the contract’s “withdraw” function.

By following these recommendations, you can increase your chances of success when calling the “withdraw” function in your Solidity contract on a polygon network.