Option buyers always think they’re playing the lottery, while sellers are really selling umbrellas. Time value is something—every day you wake up and it’s already sucking the buyer’s blood. But sellers also fear a sudden downpour—for example, when a cross-chain bridge gets hacked. Volatility spikes instantly, and the seller’s theta positions aren’t enough to cover vega’s damage.

Lately I’ve been increasingly convinced that the hardest part in options pricing isn’t the Greek letters—it’s the tolerance for “waiting to be confirmed.” In the oracle abnormal mispricing case, the chain delay meant the final result came out only after more than a dozen minutes. In that window, the buyer was betting that the delay would eventually correct itself, while the seller was betting the system would recognize and admit the error. Put simply, both sides are betting on whether the other one will break first.

Me personally, I’m now more inclined to act as the seller—but only in positions where “even if I lose, I can still afford it.” I split the risk into three layers: principal safety, profit-and-loss volatility, and pure speculation. Option seller positions only go into the second layer. Even if the time value gets eaten up, it still won’t touch the bottom line of my stack.

What about you—do you stand with the buyer or the seller? Or have you tried both and found it’s better to simply hold spot?