On the official program material, a gift to the U.S. government together with a processing fee, alongside the eligibility and admissibility requirements the process sets. Re-verify the current terms before acting on them.
There is a prior question here about the money
The description to rely on is the government's own program page and its frequently asked questions, and nothing else should be treated as authoritative. This is not a conventional visa category with a statutory list of conditions of the kind that governs professional entry, company transfers, treaty investment or immigrant investment, and it should not be presented as one. What it shares with every route is admissibility: a payment does not overcome a ground of inadmissibility, and a prior refusal, an overstay or a criminal matter is assessed under general law whichever process is used. For this household there is a prior question, which is whether the money exists in a form that could be paid at all. Answer that first, then read the official terms and record the date you read them.
Hypothetical example: an executive from a specialty optical-lens company assumes that ability to make the program payment settles every later immigration question. A first review should separate the official program terms, the applicant's own eligibility basis, admissibility, and the source of the payment. The dated official page and the applicant's records settle different issues; an intermediary's assurance settles none. The applicant, not an employer or sponsor, pays the stated amount directly to the U.S. government. This is not a conventional visa classification. Sequence the review by confirming the governing terms and personal eligibility before arranging liquidity. The common mistake is treating the payment as a substitute for the underlying immigrant-category requirements or for an admissibility assessment, which it cannot be.