The prices are not going due to an economic change of form. It's happening because capitalism facilitates it. I think the writer is using an old view of capitalism and ascribing developments in modern capitalism to something brand new.
We can't stop the markets and tell them they're not being good old boy pure capitalists when they are doing exactly what capitalism promotes, albeit secretly. If a system develops differently than anticipated due to how it's used, it doesn't make it not the original design. You can repurpose the design, and make people view it differently, but the design remains static and people will react to the system appropriately based on the conditions allowed and not the conditions predicted or requested.
The need for a new definition arises solely from the person attempting to persuade you to accept it, better so if it confirms bias, uses half-truths to explain, and catchy language like Technofeudalism.
I guess it has provoked my thought, maybe I will read it.