Suppose the whole chain works. The standby team reaches you in time, perfusion is even, the vitreous state holds for a century, and future medical technology reads your preserved structure back into a working person.
You wake up owning nothing. Everything you had was distributed the day you were declared dead, because that is what the law does with the property of the dead.
This is an open problem, and it is worth saying so before describing the partial answers to it.
The problem is custody, not money
At legal death you stop being a legal owner. The person who might need those resources later is still you in every way that matters to you now, but not in the way that matters to a court.
So you need a structure that can hold value while you cannot, for decades or centuries, and then release it to somebody the law does not currently recognise as the original owner.
That is unusual but not unprecedented. Foundations hold endowments for purposes rather than people. Trusts hold assets for beneficiaries who are not yet born. Separating ownership from control is ordinary legal machinery.
The hard part is pointing that machinery at a beneficiary who is legally dead today and hypothetically alive much later.
And the vehicle has to last as long as you do. The same institutional durability that makes provider stability a real question applies to whatever holds your money, through inflation, regime change, and the ordinary entropy that dissolves most institutions well inside a hundred years.
The trust route
The most concrete instrument is a discretionary trust that does two jobs in sequence.
First it pays for the preservation and storage, which you would have arranged anyway through life insurance or another funding method. Then it invests what remains, with instructions that the accumulated value reach you if revival happens.
The appeal is compounding. A modest sum left to grow for a century can become a large one.
The vulnerabilities are equally concrete. Trustees are human institutions that can be captured, drift from their mandate, or dissolve. Many jurisdictions cap how long a trust may run before it must distribute. And the deed has to describe a beneficiary the present legal system does not expect to exist.
None of that is fatal. All of it is unsolved.
Spreading the failure modes
If no single vehicle is robust, the reasonable move is the one you would make with any high-uncertainty bet: make sure no single failure zeroes everything.
At the Biostasis2021 conference in Zurich, Rafael Hostettler set out one version of this. His suggestions were physical and institutional rather than legal: hold goods whose value has historically risen, such as gold, art or diamonds; donate some to museums in the hope of recovering them after revival; make low-risk long-term investments; account for environmental and social change; and divide resources rather than concentrate them.
A second split is worth considering alongside it. Part of your resources can go to a durable non-profit aligned with your survival. Your storage fee already works this way: at the time of preservation it leaves the operating company and transfers to the Patient Care Foundation in Basel, which holds it for long-term patient care. That part stops being your money; it buys the survival of the system you depend on.
The rest goes into a vehicle whose only job is carrying value forward to the revived person.
The same expected-value reasoning that justifies preservation applies to the money behind it: spread the bet so a partial failure is survivable. The practical detail is in wealth management for cryopreservation.
The case that none of this matters
There is a real possibility that this solves a problem the future will not have.
The conditions that make revival plausible, mature molecular engineering and abundant energy among them, point toward substantial material abundance. In that world the cost of housing, feeding and re-educating one revived person could be trivial, and a trust grinding away for a century to hand you a fortune would be an anachronism.
The argument cuts both ways. A future advanced enough to revive you might be post-scarcity, or it might be one where a person with no assets and no legal standing is unusually vulnerable.
Not knowing which is itself the argument for a modest, diversified hedge rather than either complacency or an elaborate fortune.
Every plan here is also conditional on a step that has not been demonstrated: revival is not currently possible.
Preserving a body is a physics problem with a working answer. Preserving wealth across legal death is a problem in law and institutions with no settled answer, best met with diversification rather than one clever structure.
This is a part of biostasis where the science is further ahead than the surrounding machinery. Tissue can be vitrified and held at -196°C with confidence. Nobody can yet promise that the resources you set aside will reach the person who wakes up.