This is a lie.
Originally the premise was that new people (who did not have anything) would be given money and this would make it more fair.
Not at all. It's about how creating money : for all, or for some ? In a time-space (global) perspective only dm/m = Constant => m = Exp (ct) is a solution.
So which is true?
Either value is taken from people with existing holdings (in order to add value to those who previously had nothing) or nothing is given to people who have nothing.
It is one or the other. It is impossible to be both.
This is the classical asymetric mistake.
Who bring value ? The old on a money system, or the newcomers in the money system ?
Who decide ? You ?
From the newcomer point of view the old ones own possibly no added value, from the old ones newcomers possibly own no added value, from a Universal Dividend point of view no Human Being has power to decide for the others what is value and is not (but human being itself, as only universal value of any economic system).
Money is NOT value. Joining a money system has nothing to do with value, but with a common tool for EXCHANGE value, in a fair way between members.
Value is not a thing, it is a personal judgment call. Everyone will value everything differently and the most anyone could hope to say is that A > B > C where A, B, and C are different things. But for another individual C > B > A and both are perfectly valid value judgements. There is no unit of "value".
So, money is just another thing which people value differently relative to other goods and services. If people didn't have different value judgements then why would they even bother to exchange anything as the exchange would not represent an increase in their own perception of value?
A price is just the average rate at which people tend to exchange two goods. People tend to desire an intermediate good that has universal demand to facilitate their trade. Thus money is nothing other than the good which is easiest to barter with and prices are just a side effect of average exchange rates.