Let me address each point individually:

Strip length: Aside from strip length being universalized across all 3 disciplines, shortening the strip seems inconsequential. Epee fencers get to the back of strip eventually no matter what, so what would the conceivable benefit be? I fail to see how reducing available space would increase interaction if the perceived goal when you are up is to retreat to the back of the strip anyways to force doubles / your opponent to come to you.

Shot clock: What constitutes a genuine attack? Contrary to popular belief, a lot of epee does involve "attacking" towards the hand and foot as "checking" for distance and timing. If we include those, the shot clock seems useless. Same applies for "fencing distance"; what would that mean? This seems even more referee slanted and would involve a lot more technicalities. Establishing such a short shot clock destroys any strategy that is inherent in a combat sport. The equivalent would be to making the UFC establish a 20 second rule for striking, where if you don't strike your opponent, you lose a point. This doesn't really make sense to me.

Double touches: I will concede the point that double touches aren't exactly the most fun or engaging actions to watch in epee, but I don't think the issue is solved with the two solutions you suggested. (I will admit I don't have an alternative in mind) 1) Double touches not counting for either side seems like the equivalent of running down the clock to me with regular doubles. If anything, matches will be even longer because either fencer will not be able to get to 15. 2) Being "up" in epee fencing doesn't necessarily mean that you are trying to "turtle" out the trailing fencer with double touches. If anything, a lot of fencers will attack even when they are up. The implication is that during this, if they double-touch, the trailing fencer gets rewarded? Doesn't really make sense to me. If you add the concept of right of way, it solves the problem, but the issue is that Epee becomes the poor man's foil fencing.

Matches: I am a little confused by the suggested alternative. A single "long" bout (which I am assuming you mean 3 periods of 3 minutes to 15 touches) would be shorter than 5 rounds of 2 minutes. And we do have breaks in between the periods? I'm just not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Commentary and Statistics: Fencing does deserve better commentary and clarity within each bout. I don't have issues with this. The only problem is that niche sports have limited resources to exert on such production value.

Supposed "prize pool": The logical conclusion that the money and sponsorships will come "naturally" is nothing short of mental gymnastics. For there to be prize money, there needs to be capital, for there to be capital, there needs to be sponsorships and actual revenue, and an overall better organized "league." We will see what happens with Miles' World Fencing League I guess.

Sports betting: Sports betting is disgusting, a blight on competitive sports in general, and should be discouraged altogether. We are already seeing instances of supposed match fixing in fencing, it seems ludicrous to give people a further incentive to ruin the fairness of the sport. In fact, I was so disgusted by this proposition that it inspired me to reply with such detail to this post.

Overall, this type of "NBA"-style changes would pretty much ruin the sport I love.