What we have is the compromise. The point of (Universal) Basic Income is that the compromise isn't good enough and we can do better, by going simpler, removing the human moral judgments and encompassing everybody equally.

This is definitely a case where compromise destroys the integrity of the concept. It should be "sellable" enough on its own merits to avoid breaking it.

«We still need to make people feel useful rather than resentful and entitled.»

There are so many assumptions here to unpack. People will feel resentful to get "free" money from their government? People "need" to feel useful? Plus there is obvious so much hate overloaded in people's usage of the words "entitled" and "entitlement" that there's probably a half-dozen PhD theses we could point to.

Do you have moral complaints about Basic Income? Basic Income isn't about policing what people do with it. That's part of the simplicity that makes Basic Income more interesting than the compromises and the other alternatives. Does it concern you what other people would do with their money if they had just a little bit more? Basic Income intentionally doesn't make judgments, that's a part of its beauty. It's a sort of freedom: here's money, do what you will with it.

Yes, there are probably simple things that would still make sense to do, but mostly it should just be "Are you a US Citizen? Do you pay US income taxes?" Curtailing it further than that starts to conflate money and morality in weird ways.