Sorry to reply twice, but I realized that I forgot to address the 2^nd aspect of your post, the basic income/proof of body aspect.

As charities go, I'm a fan of basic income. I have followed GiveDirectly for years, and contributed to them occasionally. I'm only a fan, however, when the contributions are voluntary. They lose me when they want tax-dollars to fund "universal basic income". It strikes me as an example of the broken window fallacy since they can't study what would have happened if they'd left those tax dollars in the pocket of the tax payer. So, in theory I like your idea of offering a basic income structure that could be used by people/orgs who want to provide a basic income.

Basically, we can partition content as described in previous comments, based on "proof of stake", or as you're proposing now, based on "proof of body". I'm in favor of partitioning the content via any mechanism. I agree that "proof of body" would be preferred over "proof of stake", but I'm not sure how we can convince the existing "proof of stake" people to switch over to "proof of body". Maybe it could be a 2-step transition... Partition the content first, since that's the easy part, then start building and advancing the "proof of body" capability.

It's also worth mentioning that a different version of basic income has already been tried, I'd say with mixed results.