Maybe, maybe not. It does depend on how efficient we could make basic necessity items, and those are only a tiny portion of the modern economy, I suppose. Though I don’t trust the government to not simultaneously screw with the incentives for producing those items, whether by accident or not, which would make a situation like the one you describe more likely. Also it’s not at all clear how housing would work— I’m guessing people would complain about the sort of housing you could get for a workable UBI amount (i.e. one that is actually in equilibrium with the rest of the economy, as in being a tiny rider-on). This would realistically politically cause the amount to keep going up (and thus cause inflation).

> basic necessity items, and those are only a tiny portion of the modern economy

If housing/shelter is a necessity, it might not be cheap. I think housing projects aimed to do exactly this. You'll eventually find 'poverty' redefined to those receiving UBI only, stuck in undesirable locations, who don't consider it true that "work is optional".

Another issue is policing, which is also increasingly expensive, and has all sorts of issues in the US. People like to just shout "fix the police", but have no answer as to how you can recruit for such a job.

This aspect of UBI is functionally equivalent to the generous unemployment + other benefits that exist in many developed countries. The accelerating inflation hypothesis is easily empirically disproven there.

(There's of course normal inflation in these places, like everywhere else, it's a by-design feature of most monetary systems)