I can't give a long enough answer to do your post justice, but I don't think you understand value well enough to be making recommendations.

At a minimum, your plans have to comport with subjective value (especially marginal value) in order to not be torn apart by the differences between how people normally behave and the labor-theory-of-value-esqe construction you have here.

The labor theory of value is just wrong. It's an intriguing idea that doesn't correspond to why humans want things. It is possible to introduce universal basic income, but it does not seem likely that your scheme will work because there is no reason why the value of this fiat currency wouldn't go to zero and be replaced by, I don't know, cryptocurrency that reflects how people actually value things. UBI is a careful balancing act--maybe a doable one, but your scheme is too simplistic because there is no incentive to play along with your currency at all--not to mention the massive global disruption it would cause to have endless long-term plans ruined by everyone losing their investments (debt is owed to a lender, not to nothing).

Now, it's also true that the subjective theory of value is wrong in certain circumstances because it assumes well-informed rational actors. But it is a much better approximation to human behavior than anything based around human labor.

Feel free to propose something based upon better models. Don't build something around unworkable ones.