I'm a keen transhumanist, so yes I am familiar with the state of cryonics. I'm not a cryogenicist and couldn't put an actual number on the probability of success (neither could anyone else) but I'm aware of the serious challenges that face cryonics. For example, while the current chemical cocktail they're using as antifreeze is much more effective than the original solutions, the problem of cell deterioration due to cell membrane rupture still prevents the brain from being well preserved for the timescales cryonics is looking at. While we don't understand the brain that well yet, the extent of physical brain damage that would be seen over e.g. 100 years' freezing under current conditions would not be insignificant. That may not be a problem in the future, but noone can predict the future.

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.