I can't see how paying citizens from age zero could possibly be a good idea. Either the government will have control on how that money can be spent (through regulation or otherwise) or the parents will, and I wouldn't consider either case good. Requiring accreditation for services that can be bought with the kids money won't prevent people from corrupting or exploiting the system, only delay them.
I also think that while basic income should only covers essentials initially, there's no reason not to increase it as our technology/efficiency/automation improves. This idea that "life needs to be basic and unsatisfying" - unless you work, is IMO not only one of the things basic income should be correcting; it also simply isn't effective. There's an infinity of entertainment out there now, for free, with nothing more than a computer and internet connection. So long as you can afford food to eat, a place to live and medical, I could see people living on only a little more comfortably.
The strength of basic income is, I think, that even if you have a chunk of the population that become solely consumers, a large number of people are freed from working on what they're forced to and can work on what they're interested in. There much more space for creativity and failure in all media, in business, in startups. You could potentially accelerate your economic growth by a pretty large degree because it takes so little to get things going today. And the people that do get something going and succeed at scale don't need tens of thousands of other people working for them to grow to a massive level anymore. How many people worked at IBM when they reached a billion dollar valuation in today's dollars? MS? Google? Facebook? I'm going to take a guess and say it was significantly less people with each succeeding company, and that trend is far from over. Plain and simple, we no longer need the whole population working when people can multiply their capabilities with robots, automation, frameworks, search functions, etc.