I’m not sure what you mean by ‘architect’, but as I don’t believe there are any current trust funds set up in quite this way, it would likely require designing a custom legal instrument. In which case, not only would I recommend involving a contract lawyer to handle the pitfalls of terminology, but also spending some time working out the game-theory aspects of the payout to avoid perverse incentives of the more likely scenarios—eg, you don’t want to incentivize would-be resurrectors to bring you back early and with brain damage, when it’s plausible that waiting a bit longer would be in your own interests.
Alternately, the terms of the trust fund may be less important than choosing an executor willing to interpret those terms in the way you meant, rather than the way they were written. … Which, should your first choice pass away or retire, brings up a whole host of other issues about how to choose replacements.
I don’t believe there are any current trust funds set up in quite this way
Do you know why there aren’t? There are trust funds set up so that the interest pays for the cost of being cryopreserved. I would have assumed that they’d have clauses in them where, once the person is thawed, the money goes to whoever thawed them. We don’t want people kept frozen just so they can get money from those trust funds.
… Um, are you sure? For the cryo organizations I’m aware of, there /is/ no continuing cost of being cryopreserved for the individual—it’s all up-front cost, with the funding going to the organization so /it/ can handle those continuing costs.
Curious whether you would basically need to architect the terms assuming that your resurrectors are unfriendly.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘architect’, but as I don’t believe there are any current trust funds set up in quite this way, it would likely require designing a custom legal instrument. In which case, not only would I recommend involving a contract lawyer to handle the pitfalls of terminology, but also spending some time working out the game-theory aspects of the payout to avoid perverse incentives of the more likely scenarios—eg, you don’t want to incentivize would-be resurrectors to bring you back early and with brain damage, when it’s plausible that waiting a bit longer would be in your own interests.
Alternately, the terms of the trust fund may be less important than choosing an executor willing to interpret those terms in the way you meant, rather than the way they were written. … Which, should your first choice pass away or retire, brings up a whole host of other issues about how to choose replacements.
Do you know why there aren’t? There are trust funds set up so that the interest pays for the cost of being cryopreserved. I would have assumed that they’d have clauses in them where, once the person is thawed, the money goes to whoever thawed them. We don’t want people kept frozen just so they can get money from those trust funds.
… Um, are you sure? For the cryo organizations I’m aware of, there /is/ no continuing cost of being cryopreserved for the individual—it’s all up-front cost, with the funding going to the organization so /it/ can handle those continuing costs.