The whole purpose of UBI is to increase the relative purchasing power on the left of the bell curve.

But inflation (sum total) is a moot point if total supply of dollars for total demand stays the same. Prices might temporarily increase for staples, such as shelter and food, but that should incentivize sellers in the economy to supply more staples, and fewer luxury goods.

The additional supply will eventually bring prices down, but end result is more people have more of the basics.

I don't think that line of reasoning has worked our particularly well for shelter.

Just because supply of shelter in certain locales has not kept up with demand for that specific locale, and/or is affected by numerous legalities regarding things like eviction and zoning codes and fire codes and animals, does not mean invalid the theory of higher prices incentivizing sellers to increase supply.

… why would incentivizing supply of staples be a good idea? If I make 2,000,000,000 more eggs you would expect that the vast majority of those would not be consumed, because people already consume staples at a near optimal rate. The sales of substitute goods would go down, but you’d almost certainly expect a rotating set of WICesque price fixing to combat the natural rise in price?