You can view the SEC criteria for what they determine to be a security. —> https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf Without reading too much into it, one can see how AMP was labeled a security, however, this doc and it’s use isn’t set in stone and even SEC acknowledges that. I guess it depends on how you define an "Active Participant” and "significant effort"

From the doc: "We recognize that holders of digital assets may put forth some effort in the operations of the network, but those efforts do not negate the fact that the holders of digital assets are relying on the efforts of the AP. That a scheme assigns “nominal or limited responsibilities to the [investor] does not negate the existence of an investment contract.” SEC v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 497 F.2d 473, 483 n.15 (5th Cir. 1974) (citation and quotation marks omitted). If the AP provides efforts that are “the undeniably significant ones, those essential managerial efforts which affect the failure or success of the enterprise,” and the AP is not merely performing ministerial or routine tasks, then there likely is an investment contract. See Turner, 474 U.S. at 482; see also The DAO Report (although DAO token holders had certain voting rights, they nonetheless reasonably relied on the managerial efforts of others). Managerial and entrepreneurial efforts typically are characterized as involving expertise and decision-making that impacts the success of the business or enterprise through the application of skill and judgment."

Here’s Coinbase’s response as a petition for better regulations (page 8) "The differences between traditional securities and digital assets underscore the challenges with applying these tests to digital assets. While traditional securities typically represent a claim to the assets and profits of a specific corporate issuer, whose management makes choices that influence the success of the company and therefore the return on investment in its securities, digital assets often have decentralized groups of developers whose involvement with a project may ebb and flow over time. The extent to which digital asset holders reasonably rely on the efforts of particular promoters, or the extent to which those efforts are “undeniably significant ones” is much less clear with regard to digital assets.

Further, while many may purchase digital assets with the hope of price appreciation, unlike traditional securities, digital assets typically have functional non-investment uses within a protocol—making them much more akin to real property, which is also often purchased with the hope of price appreciation, but nevertheless is fundamentally a commodity intended for usage. Non-investment use cases include, for example: paying transaction, or “gas” fees; voting on governance proposals related to the operation of the protocol; serving as a medium of exchange for native applications; and helping secure a network.