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. Ripple recommends using the text code, not the numeric value.

For the most part, transactions with tec codes take no action other than to destroy the XRP paid as a transaction cost, but there are some exceptions. As one such exception, 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.

Code	Value	Explanation
tecAMM_BALANCE	163
tecAMM_DIRECT_PAYMENT	169	The transaction tried to send money directly to an AccountRoot object that is part of an Automated Market Maker (AMM) . AMM AccountRoot entries cannot send or receive money directly except through AMMWithdraw and AMMDeposit transactions.
tecAMM_EXISTS	167	The AMMCreate transaction tried to create an Automated Market Maker (AMM) instance that already exists. There can only be at most one AMM per unique currency pair.
tecAMM_FAILED_DEPOSIT	164	The AMMDeposit transaction failed, probably because the sender does not have enough of the specified assets, or because the deposit requested an effective price that isn't possible with the available amounts.
tecAMM_FAILED_WITHDRAW	165	The AMMWithdraw transaction failed, probably because the sender does not have enough LP Tokens, or because the withdraw requested an effective price that isn't possible with the available amounts.
tecAMM_FAILED_BID	168	The AMMBid transaction failed, probably because the price to win the auction was higher than the specified maximum value or the sender's current balance.
tecAMM_FAILED_VOTE	170	The AMMVote transaction failed, probably because there are already too many votes from accounts that hold more LP Tokens for this AMM. (This can still recalculate the AMM's trading fee.)
tecAMM_INVALID_TOKENS	166	The 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.
tecCANT_ACCEPT_OWN_NFTOKEN_OFFER	157	The 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.)
tecCLAIM	100	Unspecified failure, with transaction cost destroyed.
tecCRYPTOCONDITION_ERROR	146	This EscrowCreate or EscrowFinish transaction contained a malformed or mismatched crypto-condition.
tecDIR_FULL	121	The 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.
tecDUPLICATE	149	The transaction tried to create an object (such as a DepositPreauth authorization) that already exists.
tecDST_TAG_NEEDED	143	The Payment transaction omitted a destination tag, but the destination account has the lsfRequireDestTag flag enabled.
tecEXPIRED	148	The transaction tried to create an object (such as an Offer or a Check) whose provided Expiration time has already passed.
tecFAILED_PROCESSING	105	An unspecified error occurred when processing the transaction.
tecFROZEN	137	The OfferCreate transaction failed because one or both of the assets involved are subject to a global freeze.
tecHAS_OBLIGATIONS	151	The AccountDelete transaction failed because the account to be deleted owns objects that cannot be deleted. See Deletion of Accounts for details.
tecINSUF_RESERVE_LINE	122	The 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_OFFER	123	The transaction failed because the sending account does not have enough XRP to create a new Offer. (See: Reserves)
tecINSUFF_FEE	136	The 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_FUNDS	158	One of the accounts involved does not hold enough of a necessary asset. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecINSUFFICIENT_PAYMENT	161	The 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_RESERVE	141	The 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.
tecINTERNAL	144	Unspecified 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_FAILED	147	An invariant check failed when trying to execute this transaction. Added by the EnforceInvariants amendment. If you can reproduce this error, please report an issue .
tecKILLED	150	The OfferCreate transaction specified the tfFillOrKill flag and could not be filled, so it was killed. (Added by the fix1578 amendment.)
tecMAX_SEQUENCE_REACHED	153	A sequence number field is already at its maximum. This includes the MintedNFTokens field. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecNEED_MASTER_KEY	142	This 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_MISMATCH	155	The NFTokenAcceptOffer transaction attempted to match incompatible offers to buy and sell a non-fungible token. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecNFTOKEN_OFFER_TYPE_MISMATCH	156	One 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_KEY	130	The 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_AUTH	134	The 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_DST	124	The 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_XRP	125	The account on the receiving end of the transaction does not exist, and the transaction is not sending enough XRP to create it.
tecNO_ENTRY	140	The 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_ISSUER	133	The account specified in the issuer field of a currency amount does not exist.
tecNO_LINE	135	The 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_RESERVE	126	The 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_REDUNDANT	127	The transaction failed because it tried to set a trust line to its default state, but the trust line did not exist.
tecNO_PERMISSION	139	The 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_KEY	131	The 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_PAGE	154	The 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_TARGET	138	The 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_FOUND	160	One of the objects specified by this transaction did not exist in the ledger. (Added by the NonFungibleTokensV1_1 amendment.)
tecOVERSIZE	145	This transaction could not be processed, because the server created an excessively large amount of metadata when it tried to apply the transaction.
tecOWNERS	132	The transaction requires that account sending it has a nonzero "owners count", so the transaction cannot succeed. For example, an account cannot enable the lsfRequireAuth flag if it has any trust lines or available offers.
tecPATH_DRY	128	The 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_PARTIAL	101	The transaction failed because the provided paths did not have enough liquidity to send the full amount.
tecTOO_SOON	152	The 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.
tecUNFUNDED	129	The 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_ADD	102	DEPRECATED.
tecUNFUNDED_AMM	162	The AMMCreate transaction failed because the sender does not have enough of the specified assets to fund it.
tecUNFUNDED_PAYMENT	104	The transaction failed because the sending account is trying to send more XRP than it holds, not counting the reserve.
tecUNFUNDED_OFFER	103	The OfferCreate transaction failed because the account creating the offer does not have any of the TakerGets currency.