That seems capital efficient to me, but it's apparently a quaint relic of the past now that eternal 0% interest rates are the norm.
I'm reminded of the scene from It's a Wonderful Life where George Bailey explains to all his account holders why they can't all withdraw their money at once, because it's being put to productive use by their fellow townspeople: https://youtu.be/iPkJH6BT7dM?t=49
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...
Simply put a bank with zero deposits could still lend money, the only constraints are risk and regulation.
However, they have little to no impetus to provide a reasonable interest rate on savings accounts; they'd much rather pay the absolute possible minimum the market (and regulation) will allow, and pocket the rest as profit.
The original post described options as a way to make your stream of money both "safer" and "steadier". I'm struggling to understand how introducing options can be safer and steadier than keeping money in a bank and creating an intelligent budget.
Simply doing something with the money is not necessarily better than doing nothing with it. None of the above is productive use -- it's simply betting. Jet fuel producers don't care about your commodity-indexed fund call option.
It can be much more capital efficient.