Last updated
Edit

tec Codes

These codes indicate that the transaction failed, but it was applied to a ledger to apply the transaction cost. They have numerical values in the range 100 to 199. It is recommended to use the text code, not the numeric value.

Transactions with tec codes destroy the XRP paid as a transaction cost, and consume a sequence number. For the most part, the transactions take no other action, but there are some exceptions. For example, a transaction that results in tecOVERSIZE still cleans up some unfunded offers. Always look at the transaction metadata to see precisely what a transaction did.

Caution: A transaction that provisionally failed with a tec code may still succeed or fail with a different code after being reapplied. The result is final when it appears in a validated ledger version. For more information, see Finality of Results and Reliable Transaction Submission.

CodeValueExplanation
tecAMM_ACCOUNT168The transaction failed because the operation is not allowed on Automated Market Maker (AMM) accounts. (Requires the AMM amendment)
tecAMM_UNFUNDED162The AMMCreate transaction failed because the sender does not have enough of the specified assets to fund it. (Requires the AMM amendment)
tecAMM_BALANCE163The AMMDeposit or AMMWithdraw transaction failed because either the AMM or the user does not hold enough of one of the specified assets. (For example, you tried to withdraw more than the AMM holds.) (Requires the AMM amendment)
tecAMM_EMPTY166The AMM-related transaction failed because the AMM has no assets in its pool. In this state, you can only delete the AMM or fund it with a new deposit. (Requires the AMM amendment)
tecAMM_FAILED164The AMM-related transaction failed. For AMMDeposit or AMMWithdraw this could be because the sender does not have enough of the specified assets, or the transaction requested an effective price that isn't possible with the available amounts. For AMMBid this could be because the account does not have enough to win the bid or needs more than their specified maximum bid. For AMMVote, this could be because there are already too many votes from other accounts that hold more of this AMM's LP Tokens. (Requires the AMM amendment)
tecAMM_INVALID_TOKENS165The AMM-related transaction failed due to insufficient LP Tokens or problems with rounding; for example, depositing a very small amount of assets could fail if the amount of LP Tokens to be returned rounds down to zero. (Requires the AMM amendment)
tecAMM_NOT_EMPTY167The transaction was meant to operate on an AMM with empty asset pools, but the specified AMM currently holds assets. (Requires the AMM amendment)
tecCANT_ACCEPT_OWN_NFTOKEN_OFFER157The transaction tried to accept an offer that was placed by the same account to buy or sell a non-fungible token. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecCLAIM100Unspecified failure, with transaction cost destroyed.
tecCRYPTOCONDITION_ERROR146This EscrowCreate or EscrowFinish transaction contained a malformed or mismatched crypto-condition.
tecDIR_FULL121The transaction tried to add an object (such as a trust line, Check, Escrow, or Payment Channel) to an account's owner directory, but that account cannot own any more objects in the ledger.
tecDUPLICATE149The transaction tried to create an object (such as a DepositPreauth authorization) that already exists.
tecDST_TAG_NEEDED143The Payment transaction omitted a destination tag, but the destination account has the lsfRequireDestTag flag enabled.
tecEXPIRED148The transaction tried to create an object (such as an Offer or a Check) whose provided Expiration time has already passed.
tecFAILED_PROCESSING105An unspecified error occurred when processing the transaction.
tecFROZEN137The OfferCreate transaction failed because one or both of the assets involved are subject to a global freeze.
tecHAS_OBLIGATIONS151The AccountDelete transaction failed because the account to be deleted owns objects that cannot be deleted. See Deleting Accounts for details.
tecINSUF_RESERVE_LINE122The transaction failed because the sending account does not have enough XRP to create a new trust line. (See: Reserves) This error occurs when the counterparty already has a trust line in a non-default state to the sending account for the same currency. (See tecNO_LINE_INSUF_RESERVE for the other case.)
tecINSUF_RESERVE_OFFER123The transaction failed because the sending account does not have enough XRP to create a new Offer. (See: Reserves)
tecINSUFF_FEE136The transaction failed because the sending account does not have enough XRP to pay the transaction cost that it specified. (In this case, the transaction processing destroys all of the sender's XRP even though that amount is lower than the specified transaction cost.) This result only occurs if the account's balance decreases after this transaction has been distributed to enough of the network to be included in a consensus set. Otherwise, the transaction fails with terINSUF_FEE_B before being distributed.
tecINSUFFICIENT_FUNDS158One of the accounts involved does not hold enough of a necessary asset. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecINSUFFICIENT_PAYMENT161The amount specified is not enough to pay all fees involved in the transaction. For example, when trading a non-fungible token, the buy amount may not be enough to pay both the broker fee and the sell amount. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecINSUFFICIENT_RESERVE141The transaction would increase the reserve requirement higher than the sending account's balance. SignerListSet, PaymentChannelCreate, PaymentChannelFund, and EscrowCreate can return this error code. See Signer Lists and Reserves for more information.
tecINTERNAL144Unspecified internal error, with transaction cost applied. This error code should not normally be returned. If you can reproduce this error, please report an issue.
tecINVARIANT_FAILED147An invariant check failed when trying to execute this transaction. Added by the EnforceInvariants amendment. If you can reproduce this error, please report an issue.
tecKILLED150The OfferCreate transaction specified the tfFillOrKill flag and could not be filled, so it was killed. (Added by the fix1578 amendment.)
tecMAX_SEQUENCE_REACHED153A sequence number field is already at its maximum. This includes the MintedNFTokens field. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecNEED_MASTER_KEY142This transaction tried to cause changes that require the master key, such as disabling the master key or giving up the ability to freeze balances.
tecNFTOKEN_BUY_SELL_MISMATCH155The NFTokenAcceptOffer transaction attempted to match incompatible offers to buy and sell a non-fungible token. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecNFTOKEN_OFFER_TYPE_MISMATCH156One or more of the offers specified in the transaction was not the right type of offer. (For example, a buy offer was specified in the NFTokenSellOffer field.) (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecNO_ALTERNATIVE_KEY130The transaction tried to remove the only available method of authorizing transactions. This could be a SetRegularKey transaction to remove the regular key, a SignerListSet transaction to delete a SignerList, or an AccountSet transaction to disable the master key. (Prior to rippled 0.30.0, this was called tecMASTER_DISABLED.)
tecNO_AUTH134The transaction failed because it needs to add a balance on a trust line to an account with the lsfRequireAuth flag enabled, and that trust line has not been authorized. If the trust line does not exist at all, tecNO_LINE occurs instead.
tecNO_DST124The account on the receiving end of the transaction does not exist. This includes Payment and TrustSet transaction types. (It could be created if it received enough XRP.)
tecNO_DST_INSUF_XRP125The account on the receiving end of the transaction does not exist, and the transaction is not sending enough XRP to create it.
tecNO_ENTRY140The transaction tried to modify a ledger object, such as a Check, Payment Channel, or Deposit Preauthorization, but the specified object does not exist. It may have already been deleted by a previous transaction or the transaction may have an incorrect value in an ID field such as CheckID, Channel, Unauthorize.
tecNO_ISSUER133The account specified in the issuer field of a currency amount does not exist.
tecNO_LINE135The TakerPays field of the OfferCreate transaction specifies an asset whose issuer has lsfRequireAuth enabled, and the account making the offer does not have a trust line for that asset. (Normally, making an offer implicitly creates a trust line if necessary, but in this case it does not bother because you cannot hold the asset without authorization.) If the trust line exists, but is not authorized, tecNO_AUTH occurs instead.
tecNO_LINE_INSUF_RESERVE126The transaction failed because the sending account does not have enough XRP to create a new trust line. (See: Reserves) This error occurs when the counterparty does not have a trust line to this account for the same currency. (See tecINSUF_RESERVE_LINE for the other case.)
tecNO_LINE_REDUNDANT127The transaction failed because it tried to set a trust line to its default state, but the trust line did not exist.
tecNO_PERMISSION139The sender does not have permission to do this operation. For example, the EscrowFinish transaction tried to release a held payment before its FinishAfter time, someone tried to use PaymentChannelFund on a channel the sender does not own, or a Payment tried to deliver funds to an account with the "DepositAuth" flag enabled.
tecNO_REGULAR_KEY131The AccountSet transaction tried to disable the master key, but the account does not have another way to authorize transactions. If multi-signing is enabled, this code is deprecated and tecNO_ALTERNATIVE_KEY is used instead.
tecNO_SUITABLE_NFTOKEN_PAGE154The transaction tried to mint or acquire a non-fungible token but the account receiving the NFToken does not have a directory page that can hold it. This situation is rare. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecNO_TARGET138The transaction referenced an Escrow or PayChannel ledger object that doesn't exist, either because it never existed or it has already been deleted. (For example, another EscrowFinish transaction has already executed the held payment.) Alternatively, the destination account has asfDisallowXRP set so it cannot be the destination of this PaymentChannelCreate or EscrowCreate transaction.
tecOBJECT_NOT_FOUND160One of the objects specified by this transaction did not exist in the ledger. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecOVERSIZE145This transaction could not be processed, because the server created an excessively large amount of metadata when it tried to apply the transaction.
tecOWNERS132The transaction cannot succeed because the sender already owns objects in the ledger. For example, an account cannot enable the lsfRequireAuth flag if it has any trust lines or available offers.
tecPATH_DRY128The transaction failed because the provided paths did not have enough liquidity to send anything at all. This could mean that the source and destination accounts are not linked by trust lines.
tecPATH_PARTIAL101The transaction failed because the provided paths did not have enough liquidity to send the full amount.
tecTOO_SOON152The AccountDelete transaction failed because the account to be deleted had a Sequence number that is too high. The current ledger index must be at least 256 higher than the account's sequence number.
tecUNFUNDED129The transaction failed because the account does not hold enough XRP to pay the amount in the transaction and satisfy the additional reserve necessary to execute this transaction.
tecUNFUNDED_ADD102DEPRECATED.
tecUNFUNDED_PAYMENT104The transaction failed because the sending account is trying to send more XRP than it holds, not counting the reserve.
tecUNFUNDED_OFFER103The OfferCreate transaction failed because the account creating the offer does not have any of the TakerGets currency.