In the longer run, the governance of a cryo organization should be designed to try and prevent drift. I like how Alcor requires board members to be signed up as well as to have relatives or significant others signed up, but this still doesn’t work against someone who’s actually unscrupulous.
If I understand correctly, I can extract those flags, in descending order of redness:
Their cryopreservation facility does not exist (yet).
Their cryopreservation facility is not open to scrutiny.
Governance shows signs of “for profit” behaviour, or fail to demonstrate “non profit” behaviour.
Governance merely changed, while you trusted the previous one.
That also suggest signs of trustworthiness:
Their cryopreservation facility exists and is open to scrutiny.
This is a non profit with open and clean accounts.
They are researching or implementing technical improvements.
I’d like to have more such green and red flags, but this is starting to look actionable. Thank you.
One strong signal that I think some cryonics orgs implement is preferentially hiring people who have family members in storage.
Or pets.
In the longer run, the governance of a cryo organization should be designed to try and prevent drift. I like how Alcor requires board members to be signed up as well as to have relatives or significant others signed up, but this still doesn’t work against someone who’s actually unscrupulous.