It's worth considering the existing form of "reverse life insurance" that already exists, which is simply selling life insurance policies. The counterparty in a

It's worth considering the existing form of "reverse life insurance" that already exists, which is simply selling life insurance policies. The counterparty in a two-party bet is always the reverse bet. Think of whether it's worth it from the perspective of the seller to insure only one person? Short answer is no, because that's extremely risky. When you sell insurance policies to thousands or millions of people instead, you can use actuarial statistics and finance the policies with bonds in such a way as to ensure you will make money, with the scale limited only to how many policies you can sell, independent of whether any specific person lives or dies. So why is life insurance worth it from the purchaser side? Many people will argue it isn't. You're virtually guaranteed to lose money. But the argument in favor is that an early death can be disastrous to others who depend on you and can't support themselves otherwise. It can be worth losing money to gain peace of mind. But really, that is the main argument. It's not a good investment. It's protection from disaster. The only real analog on the other side is the possibility that a person lives much longer than expected without being able to support themselves, leaving loves ones on the hook. But the best form of "insurance" against that happening is pensions, social safety nets, and the individuals themselves simply saving and investing well as long as they're still working. Whatever money you might have allocated toward reverse life insurance, just allocate toward appreciating assets that will generate income when the person you're reverse insuring stays alive.