This could be an interesting experiment on a small scale. Maybe a small-medium US state could try it and see what happens. That's the Federalist approach, which we seem to have forgotten about (the article advocates doing it for the entire US, which would be a ridiculously reckless and disruptive thing to do without proving it on a smaller scale first).

One drawback that would really concern me is: can people borrow against their basic income? That could be bad in so many ways. In fact, I could see that destroying the entire system. You could have people back at the food bank, and you ask them where their $10K went, and they tell you they have $500/mo in debt service.

But to eliminate that, you'd basically have to prevent people from making any forward promises dependent on that money, which could include things like apartment leases. I guess you could try making a web of special-case exceptions and loopholes by which you could do long-term housing leases but not long-term TV leases; but that sounds like it's turning the simple system into an accounting mess.

There are also numerous other drawbacks. People will still make bad choices and still end up with serious problems, so we'll still need other programs.