Buyers and sellers of options have intended rights and obligations. Is the devil in the details? Assume an underlier with ATM call delta of say 0.55. No carry. The option is a regular BS-priced option. If the seller sells the vanilla option to implement the intent to sell the stock if it is above the strike price at expiration, then is the seller not cheated? Should the seller not receive as premium 55% of the stock value to assume the intended obligation, instead of the much smaller premium of the regular call option? Is the intent described above your typical intent when you sell a call option or do you have another intent when you sell it? What is your intended obligation in words? Is the above right or wrong? How would you implement what the seller has in mind, and not something else added inside that reduce the premium of the option? I have my answers and my understanding, but I wanted to get things going by posing the above questions. Could it be that it is the buyers that are "cheated" when the option price is compared to their intent?