Penalty-based systems (e.g., MakerDAO, Aave) excel at creating robust economic incentives for user self-management. By imposing a liquidation penalty (e.g., Maker's 13% fee) on underwater positions, they create a strong buffer for the protocol and a powerful incentive for users to proactively manage their collateral. This penalty is a critical revenue stream for protocol stability and governance token stakers. For example, during the March 2020 crash, MakerDAO's penalty mechanism helped cover bad debt, though it also led to the infamous $0 DAI auction incident, highlighting system stress points.
LABS
Comparisons
Liquidation Penalties (Fees) vs No Penalty Liquidations
A technical comparison of two core risk mitigation frameworks for crypto-backed stablecoins, analyzing the trade-offs between applying disincentive fees on liquidated positions and implementing penalty-free exit mechanisms.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Risk Trade-Off in Crypto-Backed Stablecoins
The choice between penalty-based and penalty-free liquidation systems defines your protocol's risk profile and user experience.
Penalty-free systems (e.g., Liquity, Prisma Finance) take a different approach by eliminating user-facing fees during liquidation. This results in a superior, predictable user experience where the worst-case loss is known. The trade-off is that risk is shifted to a dedicated class of liquidators who must be sufficiently incentivized through arbitrage opportunities (e.g., Liquity's Stability Pool and redistribution mechanism). This model requires a deeply liquid secondary market and sophisticated liquidation bots to function efficiently, making it more dependent on external ecosystem maturity.
The key trade-off: If your priority is protocol capital efficiency and a self-sustaining treasury, choose a penalty-based model. If you prioritize maximum user predictability and minimizing worst-case losses for borrowers, a penalty-free system is superior. The decision hinges on whether you want to internalize risk management as a protocol (penalties) or outsource it to a specialized market (liquidators).
LIQUIDATION MECHANISM COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Penalty Fees vs Penalty-Free Models
Direct comparison of liquidation penalty structures, incentives, and risk profiles for DeFi lending protocols.
| Metric | Penalty Fee Model | Penalty-Free Model |
|---|---|---|
Liquidation Penalty | 2-15% of position | 0% |
Primary Incentive for Liquidators | Penalty Fee Premium | Discounted Collateral Purchase |
Protocol Revenue Source | Penalty Fee Share | Fixed Liquidation Fee (e.g., 0.5%) |
Borrower Cost on Liquidation | High (Principal + Penalty) | Principal Only |
Liquidation Speed Incentive | High (Race for premium) | Moderate (First-come, first-served discount) |
Example Protocols | Aave, Compound, MakerDAO | Euler, Ajna, Morpho Blue |
pros-cons-a
LIQUIDATION FEES VS. NO PENALTIES
Pros and Cons: Liquidation Penalty (Fee) Model
A core design choice for lending protocols: should liquidators pay a fee to the protocol, or should the system be designed to have zero explicit penalties? This comparison breaks down the trade-offs for protocol architects and risk managers.
01
Protocol Revenue & Sustainability
Direct revenue generation: A penalty fee (e.g., 5-10% of the liquidated amount) creates a sustainable income stream for the protocol treasury. This funds development, security audits, and insurance funds. Protocols like Aave and Compound use this model, generating millions in fee revenue during volatile periods.
$50M+
Annual Fees (Aave)
02
Incentivizes Rapid Risk Management
Higher reward for liquidators: A significant penalty fee boosts the total liquidation bounty, creating a powerful incentive for bots to monitor and act instantly. This leads to faster deleveraging of risky positions, protecting the protocol's solvency during market crashes. It's critical for protocols with high leverage like dYdX.
03
Simplified Economic Design
No hidden subsidy costs: Without a protocol fee, the entire liquidation incentive must come from the borrower's collateral. This can require a larger liquidation discount (e.g., 15% vs. 10%), making the system simpler to model. Protocols like MakerDAO (with its stability fee) and some newer Solana lending markets adopt this approach for transparency.
04
Maximizes Borrower Recovery
Less collateral seized: When the protocol takes no cut, a larger portion of the liquidation bounty can be returned to the borrower as excess collateral, or a smaller discount can be used. This improves the user experience for borrowers and is a key feature for user-centric protocols like Euler (pre-hack) and Solend.
pros-cons-b
Liquidation Penalties vs. No Penalty Liquidations
Pros and Cons: No Penalty Liquidation Model
A critical design choice for lending protocols. Penalty fees are the traditional model, while no-penalty systems are an emerging innovation. Key trade-offs center on risk management, user experience, and protocol incentives.
01
Traditional Penalty Model (Pros)
Incentivizes proactive risk management: Liquidators earn a fixed fee (e.g., 5-10% on Aave, Compound), creating a robust, competitive market to keep the system solvent. This matters for protocol security and attracting professional liquidators.
02
Traditional Penalty Model (Cons)
Creates user friction and loss: Borrowers face significant, non-recoverable losses during liquidation events. A 10% penalty on a $100k position is a $10k loss. This matters for user retention and can deter leverage in volatile markets.
03
No-Penalty Model (Pros)
Superior user experience and capital efficiency: Users only lose the collateral needed to repay the debt + a small stability fee (e.g., Euler's approach pre-hack). This minimizes loss during volatility, crucial for institutional adoption and complex DeFi strategies.
04
No-Penalty Model (Cons)
Requires alternative liquidator incentives: Without fees, protocols must subsidize liquidations from treasury reserves or use other mechanisms (like MEV capture). This can lead to slower liquidations during market crashes if incentives are misaligned, posing a systemic risk.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Use Each Model: A Scenario-Based Guide
Penalty-Based Liquidations for DeFi Lending
Verdict: The Standard for Stability. Penalty fees are the dominant model for major lending protocols like Aave, Compound, and MakerDAO. The penalty (typically 5-15%) serves as a critical economic lever.
Strengths:
- Incentivizes Keepers: Fees ensure a robust network of liquidators (e.g., Keep3r, Gelato) to promptly clear underwater positions, protecting protocol solvency.
- Discourages Risky Behavior: Acts as a direct cost for borrowers approaching unsafe collateralization ratios.
- Revenue Source: Penalties contribute to protocol treasury or token buybacks, as seen with Aave's $AAVE staking rewards.
Weaknesses:
- User Hostility: Can feel punitive during market volatility, leading to significant, unexpected losses for borrowers.
- Gas Wars: In high-fee environments like Ethereum mainnet, liquidators may engage in Priority Gas Auctions (PGAs), burning value.
No-Penalty Liquidations for DeFi Lending
Verdict: Niche for User-Centric Design. This model, explored by protocols like Euler Finance (pre-hack) and certain Layer 2 experiments, prioritizes borrower experience.
Strengths:
- Improved UX: Borrowers lose only the minimum required collateral, making leverage strategies more predictable.
- Reduces Extractive MEV: Eliminates the fee bounty that drives gas wars.
Weaknesses:
- Keeper Incentive Problem: Requires alternative subsidy mechanisms (e.g., protocol-owned keeper bots, staker subsidies) which can be complex and costly to maintain.
- Higher Systemic Risk: Slower liquidation response in a black swan event if keeper incentives are misaligned.
LIQUIDATION MECHANISMS
Technical Deep Dive: Mechanism Design and Incentive Alignment
Liquidation penalties are a critical lever in DeFi's risk management, directly impacting user safety, keeper profitability, and protocol stability. This section compares the trade-offs between penalty-based and penalty-free models.
A liquidation penalty is a direct cost to the borrower, while a liquidation fee is a reward to the liquidator. A penalty (e.g., 10% on Aave, 13% on Compound) is deducted from the borrower's collateral and often split between the protocol treasury and the liquidator. A 'fee' model (like on Morpho Blue) typically refers solely to the liquidator's reward, which may be funded by a separate penalty or from protocol reserves. The key distinction is who bears the economic cost and how it's distributed within the system.
risk-profile
Liquidation Penalties (Fees) vs. No Penalty Liquidations
Comparative Risk Profile: Black Swan Events and Tail Risk
Evaluating the trade-offs between penalty-based and penalty-free liquidation mechanisms for protocol stability and user protection during extreme volatility.
01
Liquidation Penalties: Protocol Stability
Incentivizes proactive risk management: A penalty (e.g., 5-13% on Aave, 10% on Compound) creates a direct cost for undercollateralization, encouraging users to top up positions or get liquidated early. This matters for maintaining overall system solvency during a cascading liquidation event, as it provides a larger safety buffer for the protocol and liquidators.
02
Liquidation Penalties: Liquidator Economics
Ensures robust liquidation market: The penalty fee (e.g., MakerDAO's 13% liquidation penalty) is a critical reward for liquidators, ensuring they have sufficient economic incentive to participate even during network congestion. This matters for preventing bad debt accumulation in a crash, as a well-funded liquidation army is essential for quickly resolving underwater positions.
03
No Penalty Liquidations: User Protection
Eliminates punitive user losses: Protocols like Euler Finance (pre-hack) and some isolated lending markets cap losses at the collateral deficit. This matters for retail users and institutional risk models as it provides a predictable, maximum-loss scenario during a black swan, preventing a 13% penalty from turning a -5% collateral shortfall into an -18% loss.
04
No Penalty Liquidations: Systemic Risk
Reduces reflexivity and selling pressure: Without a large penalty, the liquidated collateral sold on-market is closer to the actual deficit amount. This matters for mitigating death spirals in volatile, low-liquidity assets, as it avoids amplifying the underlying asset's price drop through excessive forced selling from penalty-inflated liquidation sizes.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Decision Framework
Choosing between liquidation penalties and no-penalty models is a fundamental design decision that impacts user experience, protocol security, and economic incentives.
Penalty-Based Liquidations (e.g., Aave, Compound) excel at creating robust safety buffers and incentivizing proactive risk management because they impose a fee (typically 5-15%) on the liquidated position. This penalty is split between the liquidator and the protocol treasury, creating a powerful financial incentive for a decentralized network of keepers to monitor and execute liquidations swiftly. For example, during the March 2020 market crash, Aave's penalty structure ensured near-instantaneous liquidations, protecting the protocol's solvency while generating significant fee revenue for its safety module.
No-Penalty Liquidations (e.g., MakerDAO's end auctions, some DeFi 2.0 protocols) take a different approach by focusing on minimizing user loss during forced exits. This strategy results in a critical trade-off: while it is more user-friendly and reduces the 'liquidation shock' for borrowers, it places greater burden on the protocol's auction mechanism and collateral pricing oracles to recover the full debt value. The system relies on sophisticated auction logic and deep liquidity to ensure bad debt is covered without the extra buffer provided by a penalty.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing protocol security and capital efficiency with a proven, keeper-driven model, choose a penalty-based system. The data shows it creates a more resilient safety net; Aave has maintained a 0% insolvency rate despite multiple market crashes. If you prioritize user retention and minimizing punitive losses for your borrowers, especially in volatile markets, a well-designed no-penalty auction model may be preferable, but requires exceptional confidence in your liquidation engine and oracle robustness.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall