Atomic Liquidation Transactions excel at security and finality because the entire liquidation process—from seizing collateral to repaying debt and distributing rewards—is a single, indivisible on-chain operation. This eliminates the risk of race conditions and failed partial executions, a critical defense against market volatility. For example, protocols like Aave V3 and Compound V3 leverage atomic liquidations on their native chains, ensuring the system's solvency is maintained in a single block, even during extreme events like the March 2020 crash.
LABS
Comparisons
Atomic Liquidation Transactions vs. Non-Atomic Multi-Step Liquidations
A technical analysis comparing single-transaction atomic liquidations to multi-step processes, focusing on safety, complexity, gas efficiency, and suitability for different DeFi lending protocols.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Critical Engine of DeFi Lending
The liquidation mechanism is the core risk management engine for lending protocols, with atomic and non-atomic approaches defining security, capital efficiency, and user experience.
Non-Atomic Multi-Step Liquidations take a different approach by decoupling the liquidation trigger from the asset sale. This strategy, used by protocols like MakerDAO with its Liquidations 2.0 framework, allows for more sophisticated auction mechanisms (e.g., Dutch auctions) and permissionless participation from specialized Keeper networks. This results in a trade-off of increased complexity and latency for potentially better price discovery and reduced gas costs for liquidators, which can improve capital efficiency in stable markets.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing protocol safety and guaranteeing execution under volatile, high-gas conditions, choose Atomic Liquidations. If you prioritize capital efficiency, sophisticated auction mechanics, and a liquidator ecosystem in more predictable environments, choose Non-Atomic Liquidations. The choice fundamentally dictates your protocol's resilience profile and operational overhead.
tldr-summary
Atomic vs. Non-Atomic Liquidations
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of execution models for DeFi liquidation engines. Choose based on your protocol's risk tolerance and complexity.
01
Atomic Liquidation: Guaranteed Execution
All-or-nothing atomicity: The entire liquidation bundle (debt repayment, collateral seizure, auction) succeeds or fails as a single transaction. This eliminates execution risk for liquidators, leading to more competitive spreads. This matters for protocols like MakerDAO's Vaults or Aave V3 where market stability depends on reliable, immediate bad debt coverage.
02
Atomic Liquidation: Simpler Integration
Single contract call: Liquidators interact with one entry point, reducing integration complexity and gas overhead. This lowers the barrier for bot operators, increasing network resilience. This matters for teams building on Ethereum L1 or Arbitrum where gas optimization is critical and you want to maximize liquidator participation.
03
Non-Atomic Liquidations: Flexible Composition
Multi-step, composable flow: Allows for sophisticated strategies like partial liquidations, collateral swapping via DEXs (e.g., Uniswap), or staged auctions. This enables capital efficiency and better price discovery. This matters for complex collateral types or protocols like Compound where liquidators may need to route assets through multiple venues.
04
Non-Atomic Liquidations: MEV & Front-Running Risk
Exposed transaction flow: The multi-step process creates arbitrage opportunities between steps, leading to sandwich attacks and gas auctions. This can result in less favorable prices for the protocol and the user being liquidated. This matters for high-value positions on Ethereum Mainnet where MEV bots are highly active.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Atomic vs. Multi-Step Liquidations
Direct comparison of liquidation mechanisms for DeFi lending protocols.
| Metric | Atomic Liquidations | Multi-Step Liquidations |
|---|---|---|
Transaction Failure Risk | 0% (All-or-Nothing) |
|
Max Extractable Value (MEV) Exposure | Low (Single Bundle) | High (Multi-Tx, Front-Runnable) |
Liquidation Execution Time | < 1 sec (Single Block) |
|
Gas Cost for Liquidator | Fixed (One Transaction) | Variable (Multiple Transactions) |
Protocol Integration Complexity | High (Requires Flash Loans) | Low (Standard Calls) |
Supports Partial Liquidation | ||
Example Protocols | Aave V3, Compound V3 | MakerDAO, Liquity |
pros-cons-a
Comparing Transaction Architectures
Atomic Liquidations: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs of atomic vs. multi-step liquidation mechanisms for risk management and capital efficiency.
01
Atomic Liquidation: Guaranteed Execution
All-or-nothing transaction success: The entire liquidation bundle (debt repayment, collateral seizure, fee payment) either succeeds completely or fails and reverts. This eliminates partial execution risk and ensures the protocol's health is restored in a single, deterministic state change. Critical for high-volatility environments like DeFi lending (Aave, Compound).
02
Atomic Liquidation: MEV Resistance
Reduces front-running surface: By bundling all steps, atomic transactions minimize the windows where searchers can profitably insert their own transactions. This protects liquidator margins and reduces the systemic cost of liquidations borne by users. Protocols like dYdX v3 use this to protect their perpetual markets.
03
Non-Atomic Liquidation: Flexibility & Composability
Enables complex strategies: Multi-step processes allow liquidators to use intermediate assets, route through multiple DEXs (Uniswap, Curve), or employ flash loans for capital efficiency. This can lead to higher competition and better prices for underwater positions, as seen in MakerDAO's liquidation 2.0 system.
04
Non-Atomic Liquidation: Gas & Failure Risk
Exposes to execution risk: Each step (approve, swap, repay) is a separate on-chain transaction, vulnerable to reversion from slippage, expiring approvals, or block space congestion. This increases gas overhead and can leave a position only partially liquidated, a persistent risk for protocols on high-fee chains like Ethereum mainnet.
pros-cons-b
ATOMIC VS. NON-ATOMIC
Multi-Step Liquidations: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. The choice between atomic and non-atomic liquidation models is a fundamental architectural decision impacting protocol security, capital efficiency, and composability.
01
Atomic Liquidation: Guaranteed Execution
Specific advantage: A single, indivisible transaction ensures the entire liquidation process either succeeds or fails, eliminating settlement risk. This matters for protocol security, as it prevents partial liquidations that could leave bad debt. Protocols like MakerDAO and Aave rely on this for their core stability.
02
Atomic Liquidation: MEV & Gas Efficiency
Specific advantage: Bots compete in a single block, maximizing capital efficiency for liquidators and minimizing protocol bad debt. However, this concentrates MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) and can lead to high gas auctions. This matters for protocol cost structure and liquidator profitability.
03
Non-Atomic Liquidation: Flexibility & Composability
Specific advantage: Breaking the process into steps (e.g., liquidate -> swap -> repay) allows integration with specialized DEX aggregators (1inch, CowSwap) and custom strategies. This matters for maximizing collateral recovery on networks with fragmented liquidity, as seen in Solana and Avalanche DeFi protocols.
04
Non-Atomic Liquidation: Risk of Stale Prices
Specific advantage: Multi-step processes are vulnerable to oracle price movements between steps, creating arbitrage opportunities against the protocol. This matters for risk modeling and requires sophisticated keeper bots to manage execution latency, increasing operational overhead.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Design
Atomic Liquidations for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for high-value, security-critical protocols. Strengths: Atomicity eliminates settlement risk, protecting protocols from bad debt during volatile swings. This is non-negotiable for money markets like Aave and Compound. The single-transaction model simplifies keeper bot logic, ensuring reliable execution. It's battle-tested and expected by sophisticated users. Trade-offs: Requires a more complex smart contract architecture upfront (e.g., flash loan integration, custom executors) and can have higher gas costs per transaction due to bundled logic.
Non-Atomic Liquidations for DeFi
Verdict: A viable optimization for specific, lower-risk vaults or novel primitives. Strengths: Modularity allows for cheaper, gas-optimized steps. Useful for protocols like MakerDAO with multi-collateral vaults where liquidation can be broken into discrete, non-critical steps (e.g., auction bidding, final settlement). Enables more flexible fee structures and partial liquidations. Trade-offs: Introduces settlement risk; a keeper could back out after step one, leaving the protocol exposed. Requires robust incentive engineering and monitoring for stuck states.
LIQUIDATION ENGINE ARCHITECTURE
Technical Deep Dive: Implementation & Mechanics
The core mechanics of a liquidation system define its reliability, cost, and risk profile. This section compares the atomic, single-transaction approach with the traditional multi-step process, analyzing their impact on protocol security and user experience.
The main advantage is guaranteed execution and elimination of settlement risk. An atomic liquidation bundles the entire process—checking collateral, selling it, repaying debt, and returning surplus—into a single, indivisible blockchain transaction. This prevents 'liquidation racing' and ensures the protocol is always made whole if the transaction is included, as seen in systems like Aave V3's e-mode or Compound's Comet. There is no intermediate state where assets are at risk or where a bot can be front-run after initiating the liquidation.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between atomic and non-atomic liquidation models is a fundamental architectural decision that balances finality, flexibility, and composability.
Atomic Liquidation Transactions excel at guaranteeing execution safety and capital efficiency because the entire process—from collateral seizure to debt repayment and penalty distribution—succeeds or fails as a single, indivisible unit. This eliminates the risk of partial execution and toxic debt, a critical feature for high-value positions in volatile markets. For example, protocols like MakerDAO's dss-flash module and Aave's flash loan-enabled liquidations leverage this atomicity to protect the system's solvency, often settling liquidations in a single block with sub-second finality.
Non-Atomic Multi-Step Liquidations take a different approach by decoupling the liquidation process into discrete, permissionless steps (e.g., auction bidding, settlement). This strategy, used by protocols like Compound V2 and early Maker auctions, results in a key trade-off: it introduces execution risk and potential for failed liquidations during network congestion, but gains superior flexibility for complex collateral types and market-driven price discovery. The multi-day auction period can lead to more optimal asset recovery, as seen in Maker's historical Dai Savings Rate adjustments to manage auction participation.
The key trade-off is between deterministic safety and adaptive market efficiency. If your priority is maximizing protocol safety, minimizing bad debt, and integrating with DeFi primitives like flash loans, choose Atomic Liquidations. This is the default for modern, high-TVL lending markets. If you prioritize handling illiquid or novel collateral, fostering a competitive keeper ecosystem, and allowing for longer-term price discovery, the Non-Atomic model may be preferable, though it requires robust incentives and monitoring for keeper bots.
Strategic Recommendation: For most new protocols building on Ethereum, Arbitrum, or Optimism, the atomic model is the superior choice. Its composability with the broader DeFi stack (e.g., Uniswap, Balancer) and ironclad execution provide a safer foundation. Reserve the multi-step auction model for specialized use cases involving non-fungible assets, long-tail collateral, or protocols where maximizing asset recovery value outweighs the risk of delayed settlement.
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