Just information: **We have seized the 200,000 DOT since parallel finance submit a technically flawed whitelist referenda - 1445.**
https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/24903231-9

It was quite a shock for us to discover that a staking project was so unfamiliar with the Polkadot staking mechanism.

And update about Parallel Finance news:

[In their medium](https://parallelfinance.medium.com/rebuilding-after-the-parachain-attack-a-message-to-our-community-9dccd6c2a080) Parallel Finance decide to not return all cDot to users. They will "... open swap pairs for cDOT/PARA and cDOT/DOT. That said, we can't guarantee the conversion price, but we will do our best to provide liquidity for you..."

[Twitter On 2025/2/25](https://x.com/ParallelFi/status/1894384224192393569), Parallel Finance recently decided to change its CEO to Tom Tou.

[Twitter On 2025/2/22](https://x.com/ParallelFi/status/1893205851986637228), Parallel Finance recently decided to shut down its main service in under five months by 2025/8/1 (you sure you can recover by Aug?)

No comment. Desperate move.

Yet Yubo has made some progress in clearing evidence on-chain (**The pending execution of referenda 1424 will reset Polkadot relayer chain's track on parallel finance blockchain history, meaning Parallel Finance can start a new chain and discarding all criminal history footprints if no one keep old data**). 

So we encourage the community to retain the existing on-chain evidence, including old Parallel Finance datasets. From a purely technical standpoint, the evidence is solid and easy to verify both on-chain and off-chain, as demonstrated in the [last referenda we presented](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1326). 

You may not trust our reputation, but should respect blockchain immutability.

It is important to note that the project's actions not only involve improper usage/theft of user funds but also involve relatively smaller amount/direct theft connected to Yubo personally. (see [referenda 1326](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1326), point 3) 
It should be impossible for Yubo to evade personal responsibility, unless 2M DOT  returned to Parallel Finance user, just from lawsuit perspective.

We strongly advise the community to report this issue to the project’s main investors, which could bring significant legal attention and the potential for a serious lawsuit.
Here: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/parallel-finance/financial_details


Back to title
We do not blame Polkadot tech-fellows to pass the whitelist referenda 1445. Their purpose is good. (Although it did break our heart... Twice)
However, given the success of our taking-over second time, it means the whitelist proposal draft by Parallel Finance team is not so well-audited by Tech fellows, yes?
We assume that the reality is that Polkadot tech-fellows quickly view the proposal and confirm it is harmless and then pass it out of good purpose. 

Point is,**tech-fellows vote procedure does not match the endorse that whitelist referenda provide when it comes to parachain-level business**.
Why gives such level of generous response? 


For those interested in the history:

Our previous referenda:  
[referenda/1326](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1326) Subject: Parallel Finance Guilty- Request for Investigation 2024/12/13

Parallel Finance four root referenda:

[referenda/1322](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1322) Rebond DOT from Parallel Fi accounts - Description below    2024/12/04

[referenda/1339](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1339)Critical Runtime Upgrade to Prevent Further Exploitation    2024/12/07

[referenda/1424](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1424) Emergency Response Plan for Securing 200,000 DOT     2025/02/10       

[referenda/1445](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1445)Plan B: Rebond 200k DOT for Parallel Fi                     2025/02/20

Make some on-chain remark.

Can be executed by every `origin`.

- **Problem Statement:** Polkassembly addresses the issue of a technically flawed whitelist referendum by Parallel Finance, leading to the seizure of 200,000 DOT.
- **Significance:** The improper usage/theft of user funds by Parallel Finance, including smaller amounts connected to Yubo personally, necessitates retaining on-chain evidence and potentially reporting the issue to main investors for legal action.
- **Proposed Solution:** Encouraging the community to retain on-chain evidence and report the issue to investors to address the improper usage of funds by Parallel Finance.
- **Expected Outcomes:** By retaining evidence and potentially pursuing legal action, there is a possibility of holding Parallel Finance accountable for the misuse of funds and ensuring transparency in blockchain transactions.

#1458 Parallel Finance Round Two; Is Polkadot Tech-fellows over-involved?

No Active Proposals