Some initial thoughts about Nouns Delegate Token (NDT) snapshotting, and why I don't think it can solve the swap attack.

Does some combination of block # + owner work? Each of these on their own do not work.

Block number -> I can swap for each noun in the pool and mint and NDT ahead of a proposal. As long as nobody backruns me I have overextended my voting power.

Owner -> I can swap, vote, swap, vote, swap, vote for each noun in the pool.

Block number + owner -> I can't swap, vote, swap, vote because the block number check enforces that I must do this ahead of the proposal and I can't mint x NDTs ahead of time because owner check.

Keep track of both of these on the NDT (no need to track transfers, just keep state on the NDT for who held the noun at the time the NDT was minted. No need for token wrapper.

Downside is this does not preserve stale NDTs, and does not allow someone to receive an NDT and instantly start voting (which could be confusing)

Positives are legibility of voting power, easier subdelegation, coolness factor

Where am I going wrong here?

Crypto, nouns, malleable software, interfaces, running. // working on @agora // https://0xmcg.com

Ah okay so I think if I'm understanding the problem is now that as long as you mint all the NDTs to yourself ahead of a proposal and nobody backruns you, can you still have all NDTs and the state of each will have block number ahead of the proposal and owner as yourself. So when I say that you can't swap, vote, swap, vote because block # prevents it, it only prevents it if you try that attack during a proposal, but as long as you've minted before the proposal you are okay.

Ok, I'm on the same page I think. Your original cast was a bit hard for me to follow but I'm coming around to why you would need to know when the original noun is transferred in order to null the owner state on the NDT