Removing a dot from a glyph lowers the weight, for sure!

This 3x5 US-ASCII is thus a degraded clone.
• Con: a lot less legible (almost illegible, you'll agree);
• Pro: it keeps the original grids (accurate at 1:1 size).

This said, the deep degradations make this font valuable only as a temporary solution (cf. the automatic checkerboard masking our low-res fonts in 8-/16-bit softwares, for a grayed effect that could be flipped b.t.w.).

FYI, I have myself a series of 3x4 in a dual weight (but both versions keep their fair legibility - you cannot only delete some pixels at this scale, Groszak! All right, you were just experimenting this easier way…)

No duplicate as monospace only, OK. 3x4 conversion recommended, again.
More comment if you need (too much to say about your degraded, though interesting shapes, though less useful as 3x5…).

---

I'll comment on your other very/extremely low-res fonts a.s.a.p. (still 42 to be reviewed/archived, which don't have 'dpla' in their title).

I forgot to mention I could add a beautiful degradation with the same technique {while I was away from FontStruct, thus after your experiment and without the knowledge of it}…
In 3x4, it is feasible (as a valid US-ASCII) on 75/94 characters (only the set of 'symbols' is incomplete, i.e. missing 19/32, but as you already obviously know, the most minimal glyphs cannot be 'erased' easily, even at all pertaining to the full stop…).
I do not thing there exist enough legible 3x3 glyphs to all the same effective style (this damages too much the shapes, arbitrarily, and while it is not allowed to distort or move, we come to a dead end in this poor matrix).
Your matrix is 3x5: it's about the same difficulty as 'mine', 3x4, but because of less viable original glyphs in 3x3+, I guess (it's a by far too sensitive), most of your degradations become unusable [for a static view].
Your "b" and "d" got unedited (which makes your effect incomplete – only a few punctuations could not be changes, OK).
There is no duplicate, all right/nice! but if it were me, I would not suggest e.g. a "X" ~ "::", where your already almost unreadable "o" (~ "ii" without their dot) is ruined by the way. But, again, the trick may work when flickered/hovered etc. [that is, temporarily].

In my current typeface (3x4 folder of the archive), the related expanded/detailed filename of my valid font is 93 characters long (as of the specifications in ~ version 25, with the 4-chr extension; I cannot tell more without unveiling too much from my code – a picture will be worth hundreds of words)…
It is unlikely I give a specific name to all (even a consistent part of) my thousands of fonts, although this one could easily get a trivial shortcut in the future. What about the 'nibbled' tag? :-))