There are tools already available that convert BTC to fiat. I have a Fold card, that can replace your bank account. You can send your direct deposit to it, choose how much to convert to BTC and how much to leave as fiat to pay bills. It's getting easier and easier to move away from fiat and live on a Bitcoin Standard or use a hybrid system that plays well with both.
As for your friend, that's really terrible. I feel for him.
There are already programs in place, like Disability coverage, Medicare, etc... that are specifically designed for his unique situation.
At the same time, you picking an extreme scenario to try and justify UBI for everyone doesn't fit your argument at all.
An unintended consequence that people seem to not understand, or conveniently ignore, is that if a UBI is introduced, those other programs will essentially go away, or at the very least be greatly reduced. The gov has to pay for UBI somehow. No one will answer how they plan to do that (with any detail).
Barring another national emergency/pandemic, the gov can't justify simply printing trillions more in fiat to pay for a UBI.
It would lead to hyper-inflation.
I'm offering BTC as an alternative to a UBI. That's why this discussion is on this thread. I'm explaining my stance.
And rather than getting responses about how a UBI would specifically work and be paid for, I get more questions about why I think BTC is better.
So yeah, I'm going to answer those. And I've done my best to relate those answers to the topic.
UBI provides supplemental income for those who need it the most. Those on the bottom don't have money to buy assets like BTC. Besides, BTC is just an asset like anything else. NVDA stock is an even better asset IMO, because it is backed by a company that produces wads of cash and does something useful.
But it's too risky for people on the bottom rung of the economic ladder to buy NVDA or crypto. First, they can't take pullbacks, because they need to pay rent. Getting evicted is no fun. They also don't have the financial literacy. It takes years or decades to be an astute investor. Naive investors sell low and buy high.
Here's a specific approach to UBI. Someone else mentioned it, but I'll repeat it. Implement a negative income tax. For example, household income tax brackets could be like this:
HH income below $20k:
Taxable amount is: -($20k - hh income) x X%
In other words, if X is 50%: $20k income receives nothing. $10k income receives an extra $5k, and $0k receives $10k. No matter what they make, they make more by working.
HH income above $20k: same as today but start with graduated income tax from 0% on up.
HH income above top 25%: increase taxes 0.5-3%
To ensure there's enough money, the additional taxes / savings collected at .5 to 3% for the top 25% would be distributed to those below the threshold in proportion to the amount collected. If everyone decides to stop working below $20k, X% is decreased by the amount necessary so that the .5 to 3% paid would cover that. That would provide even more incentive to work.
Most of us here are probably in the top 10% if not 1%, but I would happily pay 3% more in taxes for this. The reason is:
1. The homelessness would drop almost instantly. The homeless tend to gather in HCOL areas because there's more public resources, but there's no little chance of improving their standing in a HCOL area so they're stuck forever homeless. With UBI, they would have the seed money to move to LCOL areas to bootstrap themselves back into the economy.
2. A negative income tax encourages people to work, because they always make more money if they work than if they don't.
3. Lower crime rates.
4. It would save money eventually, because ridiculous amounts are spent dealing with the homeless. Santa Clara for example, has a homeless population of around 10k that it spends $500M a year dealing with. That's $50k a year per homeless! It would cost less to house them for free, but would make more sense to do so in a LCOL area, which is why this needs to be a federal program.