I do appreciate this 'rights' approach to basic income, especially since governments are eliminated as the brokers/protectors/grantors of this 'right' to the production of society. Yes, rights are what we say they are if and only if they have been systematized in some effective way. Additionally, cryptocurrencies are the most promising way forward in making systematized trustless systems of social rules of all kinds, including the defining and honoring of our rights as individuals in our societies.
I've spent some effort on grappling with the problem of basic income myself, but from a 'contributions' approach rather than a 'rights' approach. It can hardly be disputed that rights and proper governance to provide for their protection are indispensable to lay down the social construct in which we individuals are to interact with one another. I have no quarrel with any such notion. However, as I've been grappling with the fundamentals of money as a language for human communication of contributions to each other's well-being, my own focus has been on the psychology of credit and how that might affect the implementation of universal basic income schemes.
I take the notion of reciprocity as fundamental to interactions between all kinds of social animals. I would assert that without an innate sense for reciprocity, animals can hardly behave socially at all. Humans have even developed the language of money to communicate to the group who has made contributions to its members, and therefore who is owed future contributions of his choosing from the rest of the group.
The beauty of monetized credit for contributions is that the value of the contribution is agreed upon between the buyer and seller of a contribution in a voluntary way (in the ideal case, of course). That which has been sold is a real contribution, and the payment is a credit to the contributor which she can then present any other member in the community for redemption for some contribution of theirs. The notion of reciprocity is thus satisfied, but in a paid-forward and communal way.
Universal basic income as it has thus far been discussed has no sense of reciprocity attached to it, beyond perhaps the sense of fairness in that it applies to all members of society equally. One member does not give UBI to another and expect a future payment of UBI in return. And we need this sense of reciprocity to be satisfied in some way to psychologically prosper as social animals. Of course, no one is suggesting that UBI should be the only economic interaction in the future, to the exclusion of any interaction that would satisfy the psychological demands of reciprocity. But the 'right' to UBI is not in itself a natural product of human psychology.
What I would propose is a cryptocurrency project that accounts for benefits enjoyed in a novel way, and continues to credit those individuals who have had a role in the provision of such benefits. This differs from income received from sales, in that sales must repeat for repeat credits to be given for them. This incentivizes teasing behavior on the part of the seller who wants to remain relevant rather than the provision of lasting and satisfying benefits to the end user. When benefits can be accounted for, benefits providers can approach their craft in the least wasteful way, both in terms of the input of their own time as well as in the consumption of materials. Repeat sales are easy to account for, but how are such ethereal benefits to be accounted? I've written my full proposal in the 14th chapter of my book available here: https://www.academia.edu/30656167/Accounting_for_Contribution_and_Commitment
Such a system of accounting could possibly produce similar beneficial results to Dan's UBI rights-based proposal, but with the added psychological benefit of its participants feeling that they have "put in their time" and contributed to society to deserve their own claims against the production of society. This would also work against the development of a sense of 'entitlement' that is so corrosive to the human soul.
I welcome any discussion of this proposed system of benefits accounting, and how such a system might work in tandem with rights-based UBI schemes such as that proposed by dantheman Larimer.