DAT's `pay` Function: Code vs. Wiki/Whitepaper Mismatch

[cpanagio]

Hello and thanks for sharing your novel work.

I understand that this repository hasn't seen activity in a while, but I wanted to point out a potential discrepancy for whatever it is worth.

In commit 9707da3 titled Remover auto burn, the function pay(...) was modified. Here's the updated line from the commit:

c-org/contracts/DecentralizedAutonomousTrust.sol

Line 975 in 9707da3

emit Pay(msg.sender, _currencyValue);

This replaced the previous implementation:

c-org/contracts/DecentralizedAutonomousTrust.sol

Lines 1057 to 1068 in 3760927

	// Distribute tokens
	if(tokenValue > 0)
	{
	_mint(to, tokenValue);
	if(to == beneficiary && autoBurn)
	{
	// must mint before this call
	_burn(beneficiary, tokenValue, false);
	}
	}
	emit Pay(msg.sender, _to, _currencyValue, tokenValue);

The original implementation enabled the issuance of new FAIRs, equivalent in value to the portion of the payment deposited into the DAT's cash reserve. This feature is still documented in both the c-org/whitepaper and the c-org/wiki.

Based on my understanding solely from reviewing the code, the minting of new FAIRs, as a reaction to payments made to the DAT, seems to have been entirely omitted. This process isn't managed elsewhere (i.e., outside function pay(...)) nor has it been reintroduced in subsequent commits. My assertion is backed by the latest test results where FAIRTotalSupply does not increase for any of the pay transactions.

If my understanding isn't accurate, could you please clarify:

• where the minting of new FAIRs is implemented
• the part of the code facilitating the distribution of the newly issued FAIRs, either to the organization or optionally to an address that the payer has specified [c-org/whitepaper].

If it is accurate, I'd greatly appreciate any insight into the rationale behind discontinuing the minting of new FAIRs in response to payments.

Given any of the above holds, it might be beneficial to update either the wiki/whitepaper or the code to ensure their consistency. Alternatively, annotating the divergence for clarity could be helpful for anyone referencing this in the future.

Kind Regards
Christos