So UBI is just proxy for wealth redistribution. Sure, wellbeing has improved for small group of people, but the question is how scalable UBI is? Remember, road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The phrase was "road to hell is paved with good intentions". "Trying to build and maintain a prosperous society" was the good intentions part. The hell part is the reality that the next generation lives in after wealth redistribution has been forced: we've seen it over and over again, every time it's been tried.
Money supply is generated by banks creating debt on balance sheets while giving out loans of money they don't actually have (fractional reserve banking) and the same story between these banks and regional government proxy federal banks.
Unrelated but I really dislike this phrase because it tells us nothing, it's not actionable, nor is it accurate. The road to heaven is paved with good intentions too. There are other roads to hell paved with bad intentions, and probably a few to heaven with bad intentions as well.
A more accurate saying would be "be careful of unintended bad side effects". That's something useful you could say in the workplace in response to a proposal.
Under a basic, reasonable fair model, random economic flows in a free market will tend to have all the wealth accumulated by a few: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine... Depending on the redistribution amounts (not specifically UBI, just aggregate), differing levels of oligarchy will or will not form.
UBI allows for a very gentle way of avoiding all the wealth captured by a few. You could think of it as economic transfers tend to create blackholes and UBI pumps some of the accumulated matter back into the universe to keep activity flowing.