I also want to ask if you have any standby arrangements? I think that's a meaningful difference between signing up with CI vs Alcor, because as I said at some point in the sequence, ischemic time matters way more for preservation quality than what perfusion technique is used. (Like, if I lived in Ann Arbor, I would almost certainly sign up with CI no matter what.) Maybe this is just my intense risk-aversion showing again, but it seems to me that cryonics arrangements without standby arrangements might be nearly useless, and that's something I would worry about with CI.

To me this didn't feel like a meaningful difference between Alcor and CI when I signed up. CI is very closely aligned with Suspended Animation, which does standby and transport. I do believe you can sign up for CI without signing up for Suspended Animation, but by default everything is sent and obtained together seamlessly with CI as the sole/only needed point of contact (they work closely enough with SA that most will likely never explicitly interact with SA).

I hate to use an analogy involving bad, typically non-vegan food (for some reason I'm not quickly coming up with an alternative), but I think to me the difference was something like wanting vegan chicken and a vegan burger and going to an A&W+KFC that serves those (https://live.staticflickr.com/5057/5389457870_37d10fc914_b.jpg) vs. going to a single restaurant that itself serves both. Either way felt like pretty OK solutions.

(I also appreciate the rest of your comment and think that your hypotheses make sense!)

My guess is that this isn't going to be worthwhile to look into in this case (facing a complicated, deadly disease with many, many medicines being taken for it, and a fragile health status) but I appreciate the suggestion.

I really appreciate the detailed explanation here and expression of the level of confidence in your belief. Thanks so much for this!

Mid 30s, and yes

Are you open to auditing existing math (vs. observing and commenting on real-time creation)?

I've left relevant comments on a number of the sections, but I think it's worth strongly emphasizing that you can have a much different experience than this sequence outlines! And having this different experience can be a very reasonable choice to make.

As someone financially constrained, who has high uncertainty on his finances and the state of technology 20+ years from now:

1. I pursued term life insurance; it was fast, easy and cheap. I pay ~$10 / month for my cryo coverage, with the rate locked in for the next 20 years. All three providers I moved forward with were compatible with cryo, around the same price, and easy to work with. The policy I settled on is with Haven Life. I expect every insurance policy is compatible with the Cryonics Institute; they work with you to find a solution, and there are many. See this comment for why term life insurance can be a good choice: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NPDSB3WEEAb8Swuyc/4-1-types-of-life-insurance?commentId=5sXoDYZzRr2AcafeF

2. I went with CI, and paid the lifetime membership fee. A post in this sequence estimates that cost as equivalent to $2 / month. If I accept that, my total financial outlay is $12 / month for cryo coverage for the next 20 years; this is much cheaper (although also potentially less feature-rich) than the over $100 / month this sequence provides guidance to obtaining.

3. Going with CI can be a very reasonable decision. Not only can it be significantly more affordable, but I personally don't believe there are meaningful differences in cryopreservation quality (it's all very bad and will require appx. equally advanced technology to reanimate). Furthermore, if you have short timelines, financial sustainability is less likely to matter between the two (it's more likely both last for 30 years than for 500 years).

4. Many of the "optional additional steps" were a built-in part of the CI sign-up process, in my case.

Additionally, there are many more cryopreservation options and optional next steps you can potentially take. CI informs you of some of those (Alcor may as well) and there's a lot of unique information shared in this FB group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cryonicists/

FWIW, I do not think that Alcor > CI represents a consensus opinion; when I investigated this question ~1 year ago, it seemed likely to me that there was little difference other than cost (CI wins) and financial sustainability (Alcor wins).

I personally don't believe most other differences are meaningful (especially e.g. profusion quality), although I'm not an expert on many aspects of this.

It's my impression that most, if not all, insurance carriers can be made compatible with CI at least. They have a number of acceptable options, one of which all 3 of the carriers I investigated were happy to abide by.

Beyond eventual self-funding, there are other reasons to potentially consider a term policy:

1. Even if you do not expect to self-fund, if your financial assets will increase in the future and are low right now, the much lower term-cost may be worthwhile. I pay $10 / month for my term coverage, and I would not have opted in to the ~$100/month average you project elsewhere.

2. If you expect that technological progress will greatly increase during your lifetime, e.g. short AGI timelines, or curing all disease, you may be primarily interested in coverage for the next ~20 years vs. after that time.

The Cryonics Institute includes a Living Will, Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, and Religious Objection to Autopsy form in their sign-up materials. Only one of the first two is required, and the objection to autopsy form is also not required.