I no longer care whether anyone likes or accepts this proposal, but I do care whether words written about it are accurate or not.

The DDI could be a universal income, but in this paradigm that would mean all incomes would go up by the same amount. (Except for people who currently have no income) people being paid the DDI would be relatively no better. That is the reason for the categories: they limit the DDI's distribution while ensuring that any (adult) citizen could become eligible for it.

The DDI is paid directly to individuals. In explaining this paradigm it is set at the current median income, though it could be higher than that.

Government is not involved in administering the DDI; that would be done by the banking system or a newly created Monetary Agency. (In the U.S., the Social Security Administration could be extracted from government to become that Agency--so no additional bureaucracy would be added even then.)

Government is only an employer of last resort. Since the jobs it would provide would not include benefits, those jobs would not represent competition for other employers.

In this paradigm, benefits are not required: they would emerge in a free labor market as employers competed for employees to fill positions that were paid the DDI (which would thereby cost the employers nothing in the form of wages/salaries).