It is structured the other way round. The money is a gift to the United States, not capital placed at risk in a business, and no job-creation requirement attaches to it. Successful cases receive lawful permanent residence through EB-1 or EB-2 as appropriately determined; the gift is treated as evidence under the specified provisions, while lawful-permanent-residence eligibility, admissibility and visa availability still apply.
A gift, not an investment
The distinction matters financially before it matters legally. An investor in a business owns something and may recover or lose it depending on how the business performs. Somebody who makes a gift to a treasury owns nothing afterwards and has no prospect of recovery, whatever happens next. Anyone comparing the two should hold that difference in front of them throughout, because a great deal of loose commentary describes the payment as an investment and some of it goes further and describes the arrangement as something the government provides. It is the reverse: the applicant pays, and the payment is a gift.
Hypothetical example: an applicant from Roxton Pond is told the Gold Card is simply a faster version of the investor route. Setting the two side by side on one page corrects that in a minute. One column shows capital at risk, ten qualifying full-time jobs, engagement in the enterprise, and a later petition to remove conditions. The other shows a nonrefundable processing fee, a gift to the U.S. government after vetting, and an application resting on an existing EB-1 or EB-2 classification. They are not variations on a theme, and confirming the current official terms before acting is part of the exercise.