Right. If you're looking for the cheapest (by $/GB), then there are definitely cheaper options. This is about performance for lower traffic websites. To actually deliver on that requires more resources, which means it's never going to be the cheapest option out there.
Yes, that's one way. But also since there are fewer PoPs, more emphasis is placed on the quality of the connection (premium bandwidth). Maintaining a low ttfb and total transfer time means keeping more spare CPU power available. And high performance storage (since it's storing many files that perhaps aren't accessed frequently).
As time goes on, it'll become a lot clearer what I mean. The goal here definitely isn't to reproduce cloudflare.
I think the feature that's going live later tonight is a good example of something that's a big benefit to smaller sites and requires more resources: Normally, each edge node in a CDN contacts the origin server and caches the file on that node. By tomorrow morning, you'll be able to tell Nuevo Cloud that if one edge node has a cache miss, it should also tell the other edge nodes about the file so they too can cache it. Essentially, 1 cache miss anywhere in the world, and you've primed the cache on the entire network.
What that means in practice is that there's a single request for a file, and it gets transferred to 8 different locations, and stored at each location for 30 days.
Nice project. My only advice as a potential customer is to sell the advantages over tradition (and cheaper) CDNs more clearly. Obviously, having a longer ttl is the killer feature. And what you mention above seems useful as well. But I'd like more clear cut reasons (on the landing page) why your service is the better, albiet more expensive, option.