[which]

Citizenship by investment revenue was 20% of St Kitts’ GDP in 2023. Look at the Henley & Partners website - pretty much every developed country (much of EU, Singapore, Switzerland, many Asian countries) offer at least offer residency by investment. And they still offer it despite pressure from the EU to shut these programs down, so there must be some benefit to it.

[robocat]

These are usually designed for wealthy people. The benefits might only accrue to the wealthy in the target country. For example my government in New Zealand keeps talking about being able to sell land to foreigners if it's more than 2 million. That benefits people that own land worth 2 million. The theory is that it trickles down to benefit the majority, but I wouldn't bet that actually occurred.

The bar should not be investment, instead it should be how much is spent. That could also cover nomadic workers. So long as their expenses are bringing overseas income then everybody in the target country is likely to be advantaged.

Investment can benefit both parties (it doesn't have to be zero sum) but savvy investors don't give a shit whether there is any benefit to the country. Applicants naturally don't like to spend money without gain, yet the purpose of the golden visas should be to encourage applicants to spend money!!!

Or investors often just invest in static assets that just hold their wealth. That doesn't help the target country.

Just my opinion from looking at the schemes and wondering how I would get around the rules so that I had no dead weight expenses.