While I agree that cryonics (in particular action taken towards its improvement) should be considered more credible than these competing approaches, I wish you would not exaggerate their weaknesses by labeling them complete nonsense. Cybernetic life support and uploading have a lot more experimental science going for them than they did a few decades ago, much as cryonics does. They also serve as helpful thought experiments to people who are still having a hard time grasping that they might survive and thrive as "frozen corpses".

There is room for respectful disagreement and dialogue between camps, and it's worth considering the possibility that this "2045" initiative has a better chance of reaching and changing minds than the visible literature on cryonics -- and will probably serve indirectly to recruit more new cryonics advocates over time.

Some caution and distancing are understandable and advisable. I don't expect this guy to actually succeed at uploading by 2045, and I don't think it would be good for the cryonics community to endorse this claim. However that doesn't mean it isn't a smart marketing strategy for the concept being conveyed (technological life extension) as long as the certainty for them isn't overstated to the point where fun can easily be poked at it.

Specific numbers, scenarios, etc. are well known marketing strategems designed to account for and exploit certain well established cognitive biases. A cursory review of your junk mail should demonstrate that the high pulling ad is the one that says "$1000/day" not "lots of money". Vague hand waving about the dates and scenarios is something that actually makes people more skeptical, at least when we're talking about the initial bid for their attention.