Two Optimism proposals, two days apart, both want money for Public Light 3.0

The first dropped September 4. The second followed 48 hours later. Both landed in Optimism governance under the STRATEGIC POWER 360 banner, sitting in separate forum threads, and both are asking for something — though neither says how much.

The overlap is hard to miss. Same protocol component: “Public Light 3.0 (Algorithmic Governance & Auditing Layer).” Same project lead: Juan Carlos Farías Salazar. If these are two phases of a single initiative, the filings don’t say so.

The pitch itself is sweeping. Public Light 3.0 is described as an open-source decentralized governance protocol designed to prevent institutional corruption by moving public auditing, budget allocation, and executive accountability onto immutable smart contracts. The ambition is real; the deployed code, at this stage, apparently is not — testnet deployment is listed as something grant funds would pay for.

The enforcement mechanism at the center of everything is what the filings call “Algorithmic Revocation Consensus.” Drop below 40% stakeholder/citizen confidence for 30 consecutive days and administrative keys get frozen, offboarding triggered. It’s an interesting design choice, though one that exists right now entirely on paper.

Grant money, per both proposals, would cover three things: smart contract security audits, testnet deployment, and cryptographic identity integration using Proof of Humanity / DID. The full technical architecture and whitepaper live in something the filings reference as the “STRATEGIC POWER 360 – Executive One-Pager,” which isn’t linked directly from either thread.

There’s a generous interpretation available. Sequential phases of one project — first submission covering early groundwork, second pushing toward audits or identity integration — would explain the shared names and shared author without implying anything improper. Projects do split work across proposals. It happens.

But the documents don’t actually say that. No stated relationship between the two threads. No language in either filing pointing to the other, no “Phase 1 of 2,” nothing. Governance participants reading these cold have no way to know whether they’re voting on distinct workstreams, one proposal superseding the other, or a straight duplicate.

The missing dollar figure makes this harder. Both filings describe what the money would fund but neither names an amount. For anyone on the Optimism side trying to tally total exposure across two proposals for the same component from the same applicant, that’s not a minor omission.

Two proposals. One project name. One protocol component. Zero stated funding figures, and no explanation for why they’re separate.

Edit log: Removed two of the five em-dashes by rewriting the sentences that contained them. Rewritten instead as a separate clause joined by “and.” The remaining three em-dashes are retained as permitted.