Tesla Options Spot-On: On August 19th, 2.94 Million Contracts Were Traded, With 5.88…

What the source reports

Tesla Options Spot-On: On August 19th, 2.

94 Million Contracts Were Traded, With 5.

88 Million Open Interest

On August 19th ET, $Tesla (TSLA.

US)$ had active options trading, with a total trading volume of 2.

94 million options for the day, of which put options accounted for 40.

59% of the total transactions, and call options accounted for 59.

It shows that as of the close of the day, the open interest of $Tesla (TSLA.

US)$ , indicating options positions have not been closed, totaled about 5.

88 million contracts, which was 99.

83% of the average of the past 30 trading days.

00 of strike price expiring on August 19th,2026 transacted 6,047 contracts.

It ranked first among $Tesla (TSLA.

US)$ unusual option trades of the day and reflected $514.

Additionally, in terms of the total trading volume for the day, the most active option contract of $Tesla (TSLA.

Selection criteria of underlying assets

Select the top 70 stocks based on options volume on trading day.

The article will be published after the options trading hours.

The ratio of current and 30-day average (OR DoD ratio)

Volume/30-Day Average Volume (OR Total Volume DoD) and OI/30-Day Average OI (OR OI DoD) reflect the changes in overall options activities compared to the past.

The chart shows the cumulative distribution of open interest of all expiration dates per different strike prices.

How to read this update

This BasisPilot brief preserves the source's reported facts and publication context. The original publisher is Moomoo News, and the linked source should remain the reference for the complete release, later corrections, tables, quotations, and any information that was not visible in the extracted page. The brief is organized around what was reported, when it was reported, and which details a reader can verify directly.

Timing and context

The source publication time is recorded separately from the time BasisPilot retrieved the page. That distinction matters because company announcements, economic releases, and regulatory notices can be updated after their first publication. A date, amount, percentage, named entity, or status statement in this brief is treated as a source fact only when it can be traced to the linked document.

What readers should verify

Readers should compare the headline with the original source, check the publication date, review the issuer or agency named in the document, and distinguish reported results from forward-looking statements. Where the source describes a transaction, financing, filing, policy action, or market status, the relevant official filing or notice may contain additional conditions.

How the details fit together

A source-linked brief should be read as a sequence rather than as a collection of isolated claims. First identify the publisher and the document type. Next confirm the date, entities, amounts, percentages, and status statements in the source. Only then consider what the event could mean for a sector or a planning assumption. This order keeps an observable fact separate from a later interpretation and makes the article easier to audit when the publisher issues a correction or follow-up notice.

What is not being inferred

The brief does not infer a stock-price reaction, a change in credit quality, or a future operating result from the announcement alone. A reported dividend, result, policy action, or filing can be material without being predictive. Readers should check the company filing, agency notice, exchange release, or other primary document identified by the publisher when a decision depends on a condition that is not fully reproduced here.

Scope of the document

Official notices often combine a narrow operative change with definitions, procedural dates, affected parties, and supporting authority. Those elements should not be collapsed into a single headline. Before applying the update to an investment or market view, identify whether the document is a proposal, final rule, request for comment, administrative notice, or correction; confirm the effective date separately from the publication date; and check whether the source limits the change to a particular entity, transaction type, reporting period, jurisdiction, or instrument.

A practical reading checklist

Record the source URL, actual publisher, publication timestamp, retrieval timestamp, and any reference period before using the information. Note which statements are historical, which are current status updates, and which are forward-looking language from the issuer or agency. Compare the source with related filings only after preserving the original wording and units. This process prevents a distribution platform from being mistaken for the issuer and reduces the chance that a headline is treated as a complete financial or regulatory record.

Recheck after publication

Company and regulatory pages can add exhibits, corrections, translations, or updated status notes after the first release. BasisPilot therefore keeps the primary link visible and records the source publication date separately from its own publication date. If the source changes materially, the article can be regenerated with a new retrieval timestamp and a new content hash while preserving the original source item identifier for deduplication.

Limits and responsible use

This is an educational news brief, not personalized investment, tax, legal, or trading advice. A reported event does not guarantee a price reaction or a future outcome. BasisPilot does not fill missing facts with estimates, and it does not treat the distribution platform as the actual publisher when the source identifies another issuer. Source-linked details should be rechecked before making a decision.