Why do you think the SEC is inclined towards not labelling Ethereum as a security?

The SEC filed lawsuits against Binance and Coinbase and declared “war” on 19 cryptocurrencies by wanting to classify them as securities. Amidst this regulatory crackdown, Ethereum seems to have stayed unscathed. On a Congress hearing, Gary Gensler refused to answer point blank in regard to whether he thought Ethereum is a security. The exposed documents from William Hinman - a director of corporation finance at the SEC - which were published during the SEC vs Ripple court case also revealed that he declared Ethereum isn’t a security.

So it seems like the SEC will categorise BTC and ETH differently from other cryptocurrencies (as of now). This is strange because Ethereum has similar origins as some of these 19 tokens. Solana and Cardano are based on the same proof-of-stake mechanism. Polygon’s MATIC is an Ether scaling token while AXS and Sand are play-to-earn tokens built on Ethereum during the ICO boom.

My question, do you think it’s really because ETH is sufficiently decentralised or it is more a case of the clout Vitalik Buterin enjoys in the crypto space - and by extension, the broad base of support he gets from developers working on all kinds of Ethereum smart contracts and decentralised applications?