This article outlines a different approach to the study of liquidity-saving mechanisms (LSMs) in a payments system. It examines a theoretical model of the behavior of parties, which for simplicity is referred to as banks. Each bank has particular motivations and constraints; as a result, its behavior can be determined as an equilibrium outcome in response to the incentives it faces. In comparing balance-reactive and receipt-reactive LSMs, the authors find that when delay costs are high and the payments to settlement systems are not too large, the balance-reactive LSM yields a better outcome than its receipt-reactive counterpart. As a result, while their results point to LSMs being at least weakly preferred to RTGS for all parameter configurations, the practical choice can present more of a dilemma to the operator of the large-value payments system. The dilemma is that their results show that the LSM design matters.