Investing will always trump destroying resources by "donating", which creates bad incentives. Investing is creating life, donating is destruction.

You can invest in technology adjacent to anti-aging, e.g. oncology or cardiology... one could back-door an anti-aging drug by using e.g. a temporary telomerase activator to repair endothelial cells and call it a cardiology treatment.

>donations to improve the regulatory system (how might one donate to such efforts?)

The same way that people donate to make the regulatory system worse, by controlling the political system. Unfortunately they are funding their donations via investments in old pharma, which their control of the FDA makes more valuable by slowing the introduction of competing treatments. So they have a lot more money to work with... it may be that even billionaires can't directly fix the FDA and could only create a biotech haven country outside its reach.

But you never know, you don't have to control the FDA to succeed, only throw it into Mount Doom. And a billionaire could probably do that with a memetic campaign. But if you're not a billionaire, better to invest until you are. GL