If there's a non-zero chance that you will be returned to life at some point in the future, then however unlikely that chance is worth 25k. It is a lottery; the cost is small compared to the payoff and it rationalises hope.
I have discovered a way of extending anyone's life. I will extend yours if you send me 25k via paypal. You can find my email in my profile. Note that this is a non-zero chance.
There's an astronomically high probability that you're saying this to make a point, not because you have secret information. That fits perfectly with my model of expected human behavior. The question would be why your model of expected cryobiology/physics/future scientific development places its chance of success in anything like a similarly low category.
The probability that they stay in shape for even a couple of centuries is abysmally low (how many companies survive that long?).
The probability that, in the unlikely case your dead frozen head isn't thrown away at some point in time, you can be revived from it is so extraordinarily remote that I don't see the point.
It is way more likely that at some point technology will allow to simulate famous personalities from their writings, photos, etc than from a frozen piece of meat.
When you're dead, you're dead. Get over it, most people who have been are dead, too. And like the saying goes, cemeteries are full of indispensable men.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not big on the stuff. But it's no Pascal's Wager either. This is way better than supernatural shit. This is a bad bet, not an impossible bet / illogical argument.
Eh, I'll give you part of Pascal's Wager. The other part of it is the logical absurdity of thinking that someone who doesn't already believe can be blackmailed into believing. Pascal's Wager can only be used to defend belief, not create. (But every time I've heard someone IRL use it they seem to not understand that). That's a big part of what Pascal's Wager "is" to me.
Sure, thousands of years of torture are possible for you if you're a cryonicist -- but in such a world the same risk would apply to trillions of other sentients. If you aren't completely selfish, you're better off investing your energy in preventing such a world instead of trying to dodge the bullet personally.
If you think a person can be reanimated from their writings, even a tiny piece of carefully preserved neural tissue should be extremely valuable for making sure the person is simulated accurately.
You should probably stop using the terms "dead" and "frozen" in this context. Cryopreservation seeks to avoid ice crystal formation, and cryonics seeks to avoid death. So it has the effect of affirming the consequent.
That is not true, and when you express it like that, it is a Pascal's wager! I would not pay 25k for a 0.00001% chance of revival, because I do not value my life at >25 billion USD.
Also often forgotten is that biology isn't like an on/off switch - will you come back the same way physcially? Mentally? Could you live with having lost some of your higher mental facilities?
Given the mental damage done by aging (http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#aging), it is a fact that ~>98% of humans, given the opportunity to live with having lost some of their higher mental facilities, will in fact choose to live.
I don't expect to survive with my memories all intact unless I am very lucky. However the complete regeneration of missing parts and restoration of lost functions seems like a very solvable problem.
The fact that a large portion of cryonics funding will eventually go towards this kind of research and thus help non-cryonics patients who have brain injuries is a rather significant spillover benefit.