No doesn't mean it won't. The SEC just hasn't seen avalanche yet. I reckon it'll be labeled as security by the SEC. You make me think of Solana and what it used to be. They've always shouted that there is and sol is not a security, but now the SEC is making it clear if there is and sol is a security. I'm sure that Avalanche is a security and not decentralized..
Solana has a lot more validators than avalanche. It means that sol itself is more decentralized than avalanche. How does Avalanche's lower number of validators make it more decentralized than Solana?? It only has around 1200 validators. What you're talking about seems to be just bullshit.
Avalanche is pretty much the same like solana or ADA that already mentioned in the list of securities tokens by SEC.
I don't think SEC is measuring decentralisation by counting full nodes. There is no doubt, full node count is important for the decentralisation. However, it's not a proof of decentralisation and there is no transparent way to count full node and prove their independence. Majority full node could be controlled by one entity. Full node owners might collude and so on. It very easy to forge full node count if you can afford the support of the expensive infrastructure.
I doubt anyone can suggest a transparent legal procedure to assess altcoin decentralisation by counting full nodes unless SEC will obligate full node owners to register themselves and comply with all current and future regulations.