To be fair, this applies to any type of preservation/reanimation scenario.
> Specifically, they could make very conservative investments
As you said, in theory. In theory, so could banks ;)
> The roadblock to biological reanimation would be knowing what to specify to build, not the building part.
Exactly. Well, speaking from today's perspective, it's both. But yes, how to repair it and keep it alive would be a huge hassle, not to mention we simply don't have anything approaching this capability yet, even in principle. Not to forget, that at the end of this really long road, the problem has just been deferred by a few decades ;)
> but how do you think each of these risk factors would respond to broader adoption of cryonics?
No, I was talking about the other way around, since cryonics is not yet a factor in anything, it's susceptible to everything that may happen externally! We might disagree about the weight and probability of individual events, but I think we're clear on the fact that for quite a bit of time to come, cryonics is a vulnerable storage facility critically dependent on the infrastructure and benevolent indifference of our civilization - and not a concept that changes the course of anything (yet).