I saw this same query in the last open thread. I suspect you aren't getting any responses because the answer is long and involved. I don't have time to give you the answer in full either, so I'll give you the quick version:
I am in the process of signing up with Alcor, because after ten years of both observing cryonics organizations myself and reading what other people say about them, Alcor has given a series of cues that they are the more professional cryonics organization.
So, the standard advice is: if you are young, healthy with a long life expectancy, and are not wealthy, choose C.I., because they are less expensive. If those criteria do not apply to you, choose Alcor, as they appear to be the more serious, professional organization.
In other words: choose C.I. as the type of death insurance you want to have, but probably won't use, or choose Alcor as the type of death insurance you probably will use.
Check out this FDA speculation.
Scott Alexander comments here.
Taken. Wasn't bothered by the length -- could be even longer next time.
I took the survey, and wanted it to be longer.
I wanted to love this post, but stylistic issues got in the way.
It read too much like a gwern essay: certainly interesting, but in need of a summary and a guide for how it is practically applicable. A string of highlights and commentary with no clear underlying organization and conclusion is not optimally useful.
That being said, I appreciate you taking the time to create this post, as well as your call for constructive criticism.
It's not specifically rationalist, but Dune is what first comes to mind for "smart characters that win", at least in the first book.
Well, does time permit?
"Not being able to get the future exactly right doesn’t mean you don’t have to think about it."
Hmmm. You do have some interesting ideas regarding cryonics funding that do sound promising, but to be safe I would talk to Alcor, specifically Diane Cremeens, about them directly to ensure ahead of time that they'll work for them.