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

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 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, Parallel Finance recently decided to change its CEO to Tom Tou.

Twitter On 2025/2/22, 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.

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, 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 Subject: Parallel Finance Guilty- Request for Investigation 2024/12/13

Parallel Finance four root referenda:

referenda/1322 Rebond DOT from Parallel Fi accounts - Description below 2024/12/04

referenda/1339Critical Runtime Upgrade to Prevent Further Exploitation 2024/12/07

referenda/1424 Emergency Response Plan for Securing 200,000 DOT 2025/02/10

referenda/1445Plan B: Rebond 200k DOT for Parallel Fi 2025/02/20