What are the economic arguments for and against separating a survival entitlement (denominated in physical basket units) from market currency?

Most welfare systems denominate the survival floor in the same instrument

as market participation — cash. This means the floor is always vulnerable

to indirect capture: landlords raise rents to absorb transfers, employers

adjust wages, and successor governments can cut the floor through budget

processes rather than constitutional amendment.

One proposed structural fix is instrument separation: a non-convertible

survival entitlement denominated in physical basket units (food, shelter,

healthcare, transit) that cannot become cash, collateral, or a status marker.

The argument is that the walls between instruments do structural work that

legal protection alone cannot.

I've been developing this as a formal constitutional architecture with

adversarial threat modeling — there's a threat register, patch log, and

formal acceptance protocol. But the core economic question I can't fully

answer from first principles is: **what are the strongest economic arguments

that legal protection of a cash floor is sufficient, and instrument

separation is unnecessary complexity?**

White Paper (14 pages): https://github.com/Sczitzo/twelve-pillar-protocol/blob/main/White_Paper.md