The program uses EB-1 or EB-2, and the gift is directed to be treated as evidence of the specified eligibility basis under those categories. The applicant must still be eligible for lawful permanent residence, admissible to the United States, and have a visa available; the gift and processing fee do not guarantee approval.
Two questions, asked separately
Separate what the gift is directed to establish from the requirements that remain. The governing executive order instructs the agencies to treat the gift as evidence of the specified EB-1 or EB-2 eligibility basis, so it is wrong to say that payment does no work in the category analysis. The official FAQ separately requires eligibility for lawful permanent residence, admissibility and visa availability. Ask counsel which classification DHS would use, how the gift would be treated in that filing, and what independent issues remain in the applicant's case. An adviser who describes the payment as guaranteeing residence, or who ignores admissibility and visa availability, is not describing the current official framework.
Hypothetical example: Ruben, a boat-sail designer, is told a private company can collect the payment on the government’s behalf. The described program is not a conventional visa and calls for a payment by the applicant to the U.S. government, so official terms and the payee must be confirmed directly. The first review should produce a yes-or-no issue list, identify the record that resolves each issue, and state what must change before a filing or travel plan is chosen. A job description, contract, ownership record, or credential may settle one point while leaving another open, so conclusions should name the document relied upon rather than rest on a general impression.