[edit] just so you know, I upvoted your comment to counter a downvote from someone else. You make a strong case, regardless of the fact that it didn't address my original point.
People (even not-so-rich people) spend upwards of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars just to prolong their own life a couple months. How is the cost of that expense more justifiable than even a small probability of being revived in the future and becoming healthy and possibly immortal?
In the end, it's a judgment call as to what you do with your money. Unfortunately, fear of mortality and death is a very strong motivator for a lot of people, so we don't necessarily spend money related to death in a particularly optimal way. It's the height of arrogance to suggest that your way is better, or, even if it is objectively better, to impose your views on someone else's use of their money.
Also, to suggest I'm imposing my view on other people is asinine; this is a forum for voicing opinions, and I'm voicing mine. I understand that when I'm on my death bed I might well make the same decision to preserve my body - human beings are hypocrites by nature and I'm certainly no exception. However, if you're suggesting that raising an opinion/suggestion on the subject that is different to yours is arrogance then I'd take a moment to consider the idea that it might be _you_ that is being arrogant; reread my post and maybe you'll realise that my tone was more along the lines of highlighting an alternative use for this money, and with much more viable results in objective terms. If cryonics was known (or even generally considered) to be viable then I would likely hold a different opinion.