In general, I agree, but there is a cost to such regulation in the sense that it would make banks more wary to lend to legitimate borrowers on the promise of future basic income payments. Making it illegal to seize basic income assets in the event of default creates a classic adverse selection problem where bad actors will have incentives to attempt to take a loan.

That being said, the point of a basic income in the first place is to introduce financial stability to all households so any costs associated with preventing lending on basic income collateral may be societally optimal.