  In settings where players have a limited access to liquidity, represented in
the form of budget constraints, efficiency maximization has proven to be a
challenging goal. In particular, the social welfare cannot be approximated by a
better factor then the number of players. Therefore, the literature has mainly
resorted to Pareto-efficiency as a way to achieve efficiency in such settings.
While successful in some important scenarios, in many settings it is known that
either exactly one incentive-compatible auction that always outputs a
Pareto-efficient solution, or that no truthful mechanism can always guarantee a
Pareto-efficient outcome. Traditionally, impossibility results can be avoided
by considering approximations. However, Pareto-efficiency is a binary property
(is either satisfied or not), which does not allow for approximations.
  In this paper we propose a new notion of efficiency, called \emph{liquid
welfare}. This is the maximum amount of revenue an omniscient seller would be
able to extract from a certain instance. We explain the intuition behind this
objective function and show that it can be 2-approximated by two different
auctions. Moreover, we show that no truthful algorithm can guarantee an
approximation factor better than 4/3 with respect to the liquid welfare, and
provide a truthful auction that attains this bound in a special case.
  Importantly, the liquid welfare benchmark also overcomes impossibilities for
some settings. While it is impossible to design Pareto-efficient auctions for
multi-unit auctions where players have decreasing marginal values, we give a
deterministic $O(\log n)$-approximation for the liquid welfare in this setting.
