MakerDAO's CDP system excels at flexibility and ecosystem integration because of its multi-collateral design and governance-driven parameters. For example, its $5.2B Total Value Locked (TVL) supports a diverse basket of collateral types like ETH, wBTC, and real-world assets (RWAs) via Spark Protocol, enabling complex financial strategies. This comes with a trade-off: reliance on MKR governance for stability fee adjustments and oracle management introduces centralization and operational latency.
LABS
Comparisons
MakerDAO CDPs vs. Liquity Troves
A technical comparison of two foundational DeFi borrowing primitives, analyzing their stability mechanisms, liquidation risks, governance, and optimal use cases for institutional strategies.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle of DeFi Borrowing Primitives
A technical breakdown of MakerDAO's CDPs and Liquity's Troves, the two dominant protocols for decentralized stablecoin borrowing.
Liquity's Troves take a radically different approach by enforcing minimal governance and algorithmic stability. Its system uses a 110% minimum collateral ratio and a Stability Pool backed by its native LQTY token to liquidate positions, removing human intervention. This results in predictable, near-zero borrowing fees, but the trade-off is rigidity—it only accepts pure ETH as collateral, limiting its use cases compared to Maker's expansive vaults.
The key trade-off: If your priority is borrowing against a diverse asset portfolio or integrating with a vast DeFi ecosystem (Curve, Aave, Compound), choose MakerDAO. If you prioritize maximum capital efficiency, predictable costs, and censorship-resistant ETH-backed loans, choose Liquity. Your stablecoin preference—DAI's soft peg managed by governance versus LUSD's hard peg enforced by redemption—will be the deciding architectural constraint.
tldr-summary
MakerDAO CDPs vs. Liquity Troves
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side comparison of the two leading decentralized borrowing protocols, highlighting their core architectural and economic trade-offs.
01
MakerDAO: Maximum Flexibility & Ecosystem
Multi-Collateral Vaults: Supports over 30+ asset types (ETH, wBTC, real-world assets). DAI Savings Rate (DSR): Offers yield on deposited DAI (currently ~5%). Governance Token (MKR): Active decentralized governance for parameter changes. This matters for institutions and users seeking diverse collateral options, yield on stablecoin holdings, and a mature, adaptable system with a $7B+ Total Value Locked (TVL).
30+
Collateral Types
$7B+
TVL
02
MakerDAO: Stability Fee & Complexity
Variable Stability Fees: Borrowing costs change via MKR governance votes (e.g., ETH-A fee ~3-5%). Liquidation Penalty: 13% fee on vault debt during auctions. System Complexity: Relies on Keepers, Oracles (Maker Oracle Security Module), and a multi-layered governance process. This matters for users who prioritize predictable costs and prefer a simpler, more automated liquidation mechanism.
03
Liquity: Minimum Cost & Simplicity
Zero Interest Rate: Borrowing only incurs a one-time fee (0.5-5% variable) and a fixed 200 LUSD liquidation reserve. ETH-Only Collateral: Simpler, battle-tested design focused on a single asset. Direct Redemptions: LUSD can be redeemed for ETH at face value when the protocol is >100% collateralized. This matters for cost-sensitive borrowers seeking the cheapest stablecoin loan and a protocol with no governance overhead.
0%
Interest Rate
110%
Min. Collateral Ratio
04
Liquity: Limited Features & Peg Stability
Single Collateral (ETH): No exposure to other crypto assets or RWAs. No Native Yield: LUSD holders must seek external DeFi pools for yield. Stability Pool Reliance: Liquidations depend on a pool of LUSD depositors, introducing a unique risk vector. Hard Peg Mechanism: The redemption mechanism enforces a hard floor but can lead to peg volatility during market stress. This matters for users needing multi-asset strategies or who are uncomfortable with the stability pool's role in liquidations.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: MakerDAO CDPs vs. Liquity Troves
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for decentralized stablecoin borrowing.
| Metric | MakerDAO CDP (Vault) | Liquity Trove |
|---|---|---|
Minimum Collateral Ratio (MCR) | 110% (ETH-A) | 110% |
Stablecoin Issued | DAI | LUSD |
Interest Rate (Stability Fee) | Variable (e.g., 3.5% APY) | 0% |
Liquidation Recovery Mechanism | Dutch Auction (MKR) | Stability Pool + Redemptions |
Governance Token Exposure | Required (MKR) | None |
Front-end & Oracle Risk | Yes (Governance-managed) | Decentralized & Permissionless |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $7.5B+ | $700M+ |
pros-cons-a
PROTOCOL COMPARISON
MakerDAO CDPs vs. Liquity Troves
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for two leading decentralized stablecoin protocols.
01
MakerDAO: Maximum Flexibility
Multi-Collateral & Governance: Supports 30+ asset types (ETH, wBTC, Real-World Assets via MIPs). This matters for institutions seeking diversified exposure or compliance with on-chain credit facilities. The DAO-driven governance allows for continuous parameter updates and new integrations.
30+
Collateral Types
$5B+
Total Value Locked
03
Liquity: Minimal Cost Structure
Zero Interest & One-Time Fee: Borrowers pay a one-time issuance fee (variable based on redemption activity) and no ongoing interest. This matters for capital-efficient, long-term holders who want to maximize leverage without accruing periodic costs. The protocol's $200M+ Stability Pool acts as the first-line liquidity backstop.
0%
Ongoing Interest
$200M+
Stability Pool
05
MakerDAO: Liquidation Complexity
Auction-Based & Slower: Liquidations occur via Dutch auctions with a ~40-minute delay (from poke to auction start). This matters for users who may need more time to react to market downturns but introduces complexity and requires active monitoring or use of keeper bots.
06
Liquity: Collateral & Redemption Rigidity
ETH-Only & Direct Redemptions: Only accepts ETH/stETH as collateral, limiting diversification. Furthermore, LUSD can be redeemed directly for the underlying ETH at face value during periods of price decline, creating immediate, involuntary exit pressure on highly leveraged positions.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
MakerDAO CDPs vs. Liquity Troves
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs and protocol architects.
02
MakerDAO: Stability & Ecosystem
Proven Stability Fee Model: Adjustable interest rate (DSR) helps maintain the DAI peg. This matters for protocols where price stability is non-negotiable.
Massive Ecosystem Integration: DAI is integrated in 400+ DeFi protocols (Compound, Aave, Uniswap). This matters for maximizing utility and liquidity for minted stablecoins.
$5B+
Total Value Locked (TVL)
400+
Protocol Integrations
04
Liquity: Decentralization & Resilience
Fully Immutable & Governance-Free: No admin keys or upgradeable contracts. This matters for protocols prioritizing censorship resistance and long-term predictability.
Direct Redemption Mechanism: LUSD can be redeemed for underlying ETH at face value, creating a hard price floor. This matters for maintaining peg stability during market stress without reliance on oracles.
100%
On-Chain Governance
05
MakerDAO: Complexity & Cost
Governance Overhead: MKR voting and executive spells add latency to parameter changes. This matters for teams that need to adapt quickly to market conditions.
Recurring Stability Fees: Borrowers pay a variable annual interest rate (currently ~6-8%). This matters for cost-sensitive operations over long horizons.
06
Liquity: Rigidity & Concentration Risk
Single Collateral (ETH only): No support for wBTC, LSTs, or other assets. This matters for portfolios that are not purely ETH-denominated.
Front-End Risk: While the protocol is immutable, user-facing front-ends are permissioned and can be censored. This matters for enterprise-grade access guarantees.
MAKERDAO CDPS VS. LIQUITY TROVES
Risk Profile Comparison: Liquidation and Stability
Direct comparison of liquidation mechanics, stability fees, and systemic risk parameters.
| Metric | MakerDAO CDPs | Liquity Troves |
|---|---|---|
Minimum Collateral Ratio (MCR) | 100% (ETH-A) | 110% |
Liquidation Penalty | 13% (ETH-A) | 0% |
Stability Fee (Base Rate) | Variable (e.g., 0.5% APY) | 0% |
Recovery Mode Trigger | Global Debt > 150% of Collateral | Global CR < 150% |
Liquidation Mechanism | Auctions (Keepers) | Stability Pool (SP) + Redemptions |
Governance Control over Key Parameters | ||
Direct Redemptions (at face value) |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: User Scenarios and Personas
MakerDAO CDPs for Capital Efficiency
Verdict: Superior for complex, multi-asset strategies. Strengths: MakerDAO's multi-collateral system supports a wide basket of assets (ETH, wBTC, LSTs, RWA vaults) with varying risk parameters. This allows sophisticated users to leverage a diversified portfolio as collateral. The DSR (Dai Savings Rate) enables yield on idle Dai, creating a positive carry loop. The Spark Protocol integration offers native DeFi leverage. Use MakerDAO if you need to maximize yield on a diverse asset base or require a stable, yield-bearing asset.
Liquity Troves for Capital Efficiency
Verdict: Optimal for pure ETH maximization with zero interest. Strengths: Liquity's 0% interest rate is its defining efficiency feature. The 110% minimum collateral ratio allows for the highest possible leverage on a single ETH position without accruing a variable cost of capital. The Stability Pool provides a direct mechanism to earn liquidation rewards. Choose Liquity if your strategy is purely ETH-bullish, you want to minimize long-term borrowing costs, and can actively manage a tight collateral buffer.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide CTOs and architects in selecting the optimal decentralized borrowing protocol for their application.
MakerDAO's CDP system excels at flexibility and ecosystem integration because of its multi-collateral design and deep DeFi liquidity. For example, with over $6.5 billion in Total Value Locked (TVL), Maker supports a wide array of assets like ETH, wBTC, and real-world assets (RWAs), enabling complex financial strategies. Its governance token, MKR, and stablecoin, DAI, are deeply integrated across protocols like Aave, Compound, and Uniswap, making it the de facto standard for institutional-grade DeFi applications that require maximum asset compatibility and composability.
Liquity's Trove system takes a radically different approach by prioritizing capital efficiency and immutable minimalism. This results in a trade-off: users benefit from a 0% interest rate and a one-time borrowing fee (averaging 0.5-2%), but are limited to a single collateral type (ETH). The protocol's reliance on a Stability Pool and a network of front-end operators, rather than active governance, creates a system with lower operational overhead and censorship resistance. However, it sacrifices the asset diversity and upgradeability that Maker's governance provides.
The key trade-off is between flexibility and radical efficiency. If your priority is building a product that requires multi-asset collateral, governance influence, or deep integration with the broader DeFi stack, choose MakerDAO. Its established DAI ecosystem is a critical infrastructure layer. If you prioritize minimizing lifetime borrowing costs for ETH holders, maximizing capital efficiency, and deploying on a protocol with no governance risk, choose Liquity. Its design is optimal for users seeking the cheapest possible leverage on a pure ETH position.
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