← Roblox Interview Insights

Roblox·Software Engineer·Onsite - System Design / Architecture·Senior

SeniorPrefer not to say
Jun 2026

Summary

System design round at Roblox focused entirely on building a payment processing system. It was a deep one, covered a lot of ground, and I left feeling like I'd done okay on the broad strokes but got a bit shaky on some of the distributed systems specifics.

Questions Asked (6)

Q1

Design a payment processing system that supports multiple payment methods (card, wallet, bank transfer), refunds, and reconciliation.

System DesignData Modeling
Author's notes

I started with the API surface and worked outward, which felt right.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements and constraints, then design a modular architecture with a payment gateway abstraction that handles different payment methods uniformly. Focus on idempotency, consistency, and reconciliation to ensure reliability and correctness.

Pro tip: Emphasize idempotency and exactly-once processing, as payment systems must handle retries and failures gracefully. Also, discuss how you would handle partial failures and compensating transactions in a distributed environment.

1. Clarify Requirements

Ask about expected scale, supported payment methods, refund policies, reconciliation frequency, and consistency requirements. Confirm whether the system needs to handle multiple currencies and regulatory compliance.

2. High-Level Architecture

Outline core components: API gateway, payment service, payment method adapters, transaction ledger, refund service, and reconciliation service. Discuss how they interact and ensure loose coupling.

3. Data Modeling

Design schemas for transactions, refunds, and reconciliation records. Include fields for idempotency keys, status, timestamps, and external references. Consider using an append-only ledger for auditability.

4. Key Flows

Walk through payment processing, refund handling, and reconciliation flows. Highlight idempotency, error handling, retries, and how to maintain consistency across services.

5. Scalability & Reliability

Discuss partitioning, replication, and fault tolerance. Explain how to handle high throughput, ensure data durability, and recover from failures.

Key Points to Mention

  • Idempotency keys to prevent duplicate charges
  • Payment gateway abstraction for multiple methods
  • Transaction ledger for audit and reconciliation
  • Handling partial failures and compensating transactions
  • Reconciliation process to match internal records with external statements
  • Security and compliance (PCI DSS, encryption, tokenization)

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.

Q2

How would you handle idempotency in a payment system, especially when retrying requests to an external payment gateway?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offsAPI & Integrations
Author's notes

This is the part I actually felt good about.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by defining idempotency in the context of payment systems: ensuring that retrying a request doesn't result in duplicate charges. Then, describe a concrete mechanism like idempotency keys, and discuss how to handle retries with external gateways, including edge cases and trade-offs.

Pro tip: Emphasize that idempotency must be enforced on both your side and the gateway's side, and that you should design for failure scenarios like network timeouts where the request may have succeeded but the response was lost.

1. Define the problem and requirements

Explain what idempotency means in payments and why it's critical: preventing duplicate charges when retrying due to network failures or timeouts. Mention that the solution must be reliable, scalable, and auditable.

2. Use idempotency keys

Describe generating a unique idempotency key (e.g., UUID) for each payment request, typically from the client or server, and including it in the request to the payment gateway. The gateway uses this key to deduplicate requests.

3. Implement server-side idempotency

Explain storing the idempotency key and the response in a database with a unique constraint. On retry, check if the key exists; if so, return the stored response instead of reprocessing.

4. Handle retries and timeouts

Discuss retry strategies (e.g., exponential backoff) and how to handle ambiguous outcomes (e.g., timeout after sending request). Suggest querying the gateway for the transaction status using the idempotency key.

5. Address edge cases and trade-offs

Cover scenarios like key expiration, storage overhead, and consistency between your system and the gateway. Mention trade-offs between strong consistency and availability, and how to ensure exactly-once semantics.

Key Points to Mention

  • Idempotency keys: unique identifiers for each payment request to deduplicate retries.
  • Server-side storage: persist idempotency keys and responses with a unique constraint to prevent duplicate processing.
  • Retry logic: use exponential backoff and jitter, and limit retries to avoid overwhelming the gateway.
  • Gateway support: ensure the external payment gateway supports idempotency keys and understand its behavior (e.g., key expiration).
  • Ambiguous outcomes: handle cases where the request may have succeeded but the response was lost (e.g., by querying transaction status).
  • Trade-offs: discuss consistency vs. availability, storage costs, and key lifecycle management.

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.

Q3

Walk me through how you'd achieve exactly-once payment semantics in a distributed system using sagas or distributed transactions.

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

Rough patch for me.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying that exactly-once delivery is impossible, but exactly-once processing can be achieved via idempotency and deduplication. Then compare sagas (orchestration vs. choreography) with distributed transactions (2PC), highlighting trade-offs in consistency, availability, and complexity. Finally, propose a hybrid approach using idempotent operations, a saga for long-running workflows, and a transactional outbox for reliable event publishing.

Pro tip: Emphasize that exactly-once semantics are a business requirement, not a technical guarantee—focus on designing idempotent operations and compensating actions rather than chasing an impossible ideal.

1. Clarify the requirement

Explain that exactly-once delivery is impossible in distributed systems, but exactly-once processing can be achieved through idempotency and deduplication. Define the scope: payment processing must be idempotent and consistent.

2. Compare sagas vs. distributed transactions

Discuss 2PC for strong consistency but note its blocking nature and poor availability. Introduce sagas as a compensation-based approach for long-running transactions, with orchestration or choreography.

3. Design for idempotency

Describe how to make each step idempotent using unique transaction IDs, deduplication tables, and idempotent APIs. This ensures retries don't cause duplicate payments.

4. Implement saga with compensating actions

Outline a saga workflow: each step has a compensating action to undo it if a later step fails. Use an orchestrator to manage state and retries, ensuring eventual consistency.

5. Handle failures and edge cases

Discuss retries with exponential backoff, dead-letter queues, and manual intervention for stuck sagas. Mention the transactional outbox pattern to reliably publish events and avoid dual-write issues.

Key Points to Mention

  • Idempotency keys and deduplication tables to prevent duplicate processing
  • Saga orchestration vs. choreography and their trade-offs
  • Compensating transactions for rollback in sagas
  • Two-phase commit (2PC) limitations: blocking, coordinator failure, and performance
  • Transactional outbox pattern for reliable event publishing
  • Exactly-once processing vs. exactly-once delivery distinction

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.

Q4

How would you design the system to meet PCI compliance and security requirements for handling card data?

System DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

Talked about tokenization immediately, never storing raw card numbers, and offloading the PCI scope to the PSP as much as possible.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the scope of card data handling and the specific PCI DSS requirements that apply. Then propose a design that minimizes PCI scope by using tokenization and outsourcing card data storage to a compliant payment processor, while ensuring encryption, access controls, and network segmentation for any remaining card data flows. Finally, discuss trade-offs between security, performance, and cost, and how you would validate compliance through audits and monitoring.

Pro tip: Emphasize that reducing PCI scope is often more cost-effective and secure than trying to build a fully compliant in-house card data environment. Mention that even with tokenization, you must ensure that your tokenization solution is PCI-validated and that you never store sensitive authentication data (like CVV) post-authorization.

1. Clarify requirements and scope

Ask questions to understand what card data is handled, where it flows, and which PCI DSS requirements are relevant (e.g., SAQ A, SAQ D). Identify regulatory and business constraints.

2. Minimize PCI scope

Propose using a third-party payment processor or tokenization service to avoid storing, processing, or transmitting card data directly. If card data must be handled, isolate it in a segmented environment with strict controls.

3. Design security controls

Outline encryption (at rest and in transit), key management, access control (least privilege, MFA), logging and monitoring, and network segmentation (e.g., DMZ, firewalls) for any system components that touch card data.

4. Address compliance and validation

Describe how you would achieve and maintain PCI compliance: regular audits, vulnerability scans, penetration testing, and adherence to PCI DSS requirements like secure coding, change management, and incident response.

5. Discuss trade-offs and scalability

Analyze trade-offs between security, performance, and cost. Explain how the design scales with Roblox's massive user base and how you would handle failures and ensure high availability without compromising compliance.

Key Points to Mention

  • Tokenization to replace card data with non-sensitive tokens, reducing PCI scope.
  • Network segmentation and isolation of card data environment (CDE) to limit exposure.
  • End-to-end encryption and strong key management (e.g., HSMs, KMS).
  • Access controls: least privilege, MFA, and role-based access for CDE.
  • Continuous monitoring, logging, and anomaly detection for security incidents.
  • Regular compliance audits, vulnerability scans, and penetration testing.

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.

Q5

How would you design the fraud detection component and integrate it into the payment flow?

System DesignAPI & Integrations
Author's notes

I put fraud detection as an async step after payment authorization but before settlement, which in hindsight might not be right depending on the risk tolerance.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements: what types of fraud (stolen cards, account takeover, chargebacks), latency budget, and scale (Roblox's massive transaction volume). Then propose a layered detection system (rules + ML) that integrates into the payment flow at key points (pre-auth, post-auth) with asynchronous feedback loops for model improvement.

Pro tip: Emphasize the trade-off between fraud prevention and user experience: false positives can block legitimate purchases, especially for virtual goods. Suggest a risk-based approach where low-risk transactions are frictionless and high-risk ones trigger additional verification.

1. Clarify Requirements and Constraints

Ask about fraud types, transaction volume, latency requirements, and integration points. Understand Roblox's specific context: virtual currency (Robux), microtransactions, and global user base.

2. Design Detection Architecture

Propose a layered system: rule-based filters for known patterns, ML models for anomaly detection, and possibly graph analysis for collusion. Use real-time scoring with a decision engine.

3. Integrate into Payment Flow

Place checks at pre-authorization (block high-risk) and post-authorization (flag for review). Use synchronous calls for critical checks and asynchronous for secondary analysis to minimize latency.

4. Handle Feedback and Improvement

Incorporate feedback loops: chargeback data, manual review outcomes, and user reports to retrain models. Monitor precision/recall and adjust thresholds.

5. Address Scalability and Reliability

Design for high throughput with caching, sharding, and fallback mechanisms. Ensure the system degrades gracefully (e.g., if ML service is down, fall back to rules).

Key Points to Mention

  • Latency budget: fraud checks must not add significant delay to payment processing (e.g., <100ms).
  • False positive vs. false negative trade-off: blocking legitimate users vs. allowing fraud.
  • Use of machine learning models (e.g., gradient boosting, neural networks) for real-time scoring.
  • Integration points: pre-auth, post-auth, and asynchronous review queues.
  • Feedback loop: using chargebacks and manual review labels to retrain models.
  • Scalability: handling Roblox's peak transaction volumes with horizontal scaling and caching.

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.

Q6

What monitoring and observability would you put in place for a payment system, and what metrics matter most?

System DesignRoot Cause Analysis
Author's notes

Ended on this and it felt like a cooldown question.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by framing observability around the payment lifecycle—from request to settlement—and the key failure modes (latency, errors, fraud, reconciliation). Then layer in the three pillars (metrics, logs, traces) with specific tools and tie each metric to a business or reliability outcome. Emphasize that for payments, correctness and auditability matter as much as uptime.

Pro tip: Don't just list tools—explain how you'd use SLOs and error budgets to prioritize alerts, and mention that you'd track business metrics (e.g., authorization rate, settlement delay) alongside technical ones to catch silent failures.

1. Map the payment flow and failure modes

Walk through the end-to-end payment lifecycle (authorization, capture, settlement, refunds) and identify where things can go wrong: timeouts, duplicate charges, reconciliation mismatches, fraud spikes.

2. Define SLIs/SLOs and business KPIs

Choose service-level indicators like latency, error rate, and throughput, and set SLOs. Also define business metrics such as authorization rate, settlement latency, and chargeback rate.

3. Instrument the three pillars

Implement metrics (RED/USE), structured logs with correlation IDs, and distributed tracing across services and third-party payment providers.

4. Set up alerting and dashboards

Create actionable alerts based on SLO burn rates and business thresholds, and build dashboards for real-time monitoring and post-incident analysis.

5. Ensure auditability and compliance

Include immutable audit logs, data retention policies, and monitoring for regulatory requirements (e.g., PCI DSS) and reconciliation jobs.

Key Points to Mention

  • Golden signals: latency, traffic, errors, saturation—applied to payment APIs.
  • Business metrics: authorization rate, settlement delay, refund rate, chargeback rate, and reconciliation discrepancies.
  • Distributed tracing with correlation IDs to follow a payment across services and external providers.
  • SLOs and error budgets to balance reliability with feature velocity.
  • Structured logging with sensitive data redaction for PCI compliance and audit trails.
  • Alerting on symptoms (e.g., drop in authorization rate) rather than just causes (e.g., CPU spike).

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.