I think Greg has an inspirational story, backed by solid success in his "context", and much can be learned by listening to his suggestions.
His birdhouses are NOT designed for barn swallows, but rather, tree swallows. Big difference between how the two "nest" (solitary vs. colonial, in a cavity or box vs. mud nest on a protected wall), etc. In Missouri, he's in the tree swallow's natural range... but up here in Minnesota, we're not really in their territory at all... but barn swallows are here.
He has some reasonably necessary iron/steel, without a doubt, but if you look carefully, I think you'd find that his "iron investment" is significantly lower per AU than most. I doubt he has anything that's not paying its way.
This gets back to context again. He's in Missouri... with lots of "grass" and water. His stocking density per acre, and grazing density per each graze (days break) is considerably higher than anybody could ever achieve with a "set stock" situation (and I'll include "monthly rotations" as "set stock"... i.e., where you're not moving them VERY REGULARLY... weekly at a minimum, if not daily or more).
Your first two of three "serious issues that haven't been addressed" are essentially the same.... not enough land/too many cattle per amount of land to support the cattle's nutritional needs... However, Greg HAS successfully addressed this issue... by using hotwire to rotate the cattle, with the result being the land IS able to support the number that he's running. Your suggestion that this "is ridiculous" is unwarranted IMO.... but I will grant that it also is accurate... since it has earned at least your ridicule.
To suggest that Greg, or others who emulate his practices don't have any real perimeter fencing- w/paddock gating is an unwarranted observation. Greg puts in reasonably substantial perimeter fence... 3 HT hotwires I believe, with fiberglass posts, and braced corners. He operates on several (16 now I think) different properties... each connected with gates. So he would have the opportunity to graze it as you've suggested... with "minimal/monthy" rotations, if he wanted to do it that way... but he's found that by moving them daily/twice daily, he can better and more successfully address your first two of three "serious issues"... thereby, he is able to run a higher animal density/acre and still better support their nutritional needs.
I'm NOT saying that YOU, or anyone else, would be able to achieve the same level of density per acre that he does or can. That's "context"... and every individual operator must choose what will work best for them. Greg's made that choice... and so have you.
Who in their right mind would want to go out every day or 2 times a day and move their wires and cattle? Anybody interested in fully maximizing the carrying capacity of their land.
Will it be a more difficult task, if you're operating on a much larger land scale, with a much lower animal density per acre, because of the context you might be working in? Absolutely.
Might that make you feel that it's "ridiculous" to be moving that much wire, or adding water infrastructure in order to do it? Obviously..., it makes you feel that way. And that's OK... you're entitled to your opinion, and I will respect your right to it.
I just think that you're trying to grasp what he's doing, with an understanding based in YOUR CONTEXT... rather than from his. Lots of difference between Missouri and Ferris, TX.