You use a very specific example of exchange-traded derivatives to impose a view of derivatives. It is not the case, the large risk on OTC derivatives are swaps and carry significant counterparty risk. Its a whole new different realm of risk.
I think you may misunderstand my point, which is that the chart most certainly overstates the exposure of derivatives. If the vast majority of call options fall into that overstatement bucket (you could argue a deep ITM call would not I suppose) and no other derivatives did, it would still be a big chunk of the overstatement of the exposure displayed on the chart. And as I pointed out call options aren't the only derivative where this overstatement occurs. Certainly a futures contract on a barrel of oil or a bushel of wheat exposes the participants to the same exposure as someone who holds the underlying. But even then I'd argue that those types of derivatives are uncorrelated enough from major crashes that they'd be at best a second order effect. Straight index futures, sure, but they probably make up just a few blocks of that big graph, especially when you again take out the FOPs that aren't accurately reflected. There may or may not be an issue with derivatives exposure. What we can say for sure is that the exposure isn't realistically as high as the graph shows.
You may be right, but you are still referring to the exchange-traded market only. The OTC derivative market is WAY bigger and behave differently.
It behave differently in some ways to obviate risk. If you're a big OTC trader you can set up a fairly balanced book with your counterparties such that a catastrophic meltdown has a relatively balanced impact on both your books. That being said, an OTC call option suffers the same miscounting issue as an exchange traded one, no? As do most swaps. And it's still undeniable that the graphic was hyperbolic and overstated the issue, the only question is how much.