No objection towards charging for cache hits, when the worker would have ran. That (except in worker-to-worker invocations) is always a strict upgrade, when it comes to pricing.

Worker-to-worker invocations also now participate in the cache, so despite the pricing increase, at least we’re getting some added value.

But for static assets in particular, I don’t see what value the cache is adding, so it feels like pure price segmentation.

Or, to put it another way, it makes no sense to use the Workers Static Assets feature now instead of just having the worker read the file from disk and respond with appropriate cache headers to cache indefinitely, since it cost approximately the same to us (per request pricing), but is likely more expensive to you.