I was an early AMP adopter and had it running on three websites that averaged 1000 or more page views per day. Ultimately, I disabled and removed AMP for many reasons.

Most of all, I didn't like that my website visitors never actually visited the beautiful, fully-featured websites that I'd spent considerable effort designing. Instead they received a stripped down version fed from a Google server.

Our real webpages were responsive and almost as fast (sub-second) as AMP, so I couldn't understand why Google promised a SEO boost for AMP (which by the way, never resulted in increased traffic).

The bounce rate for our AMP pages was significantly higher than their real website counterparts. In addition, we received complaints from clients over the lack of features on the AMP version pages, especially the lack of comments. (I realize that Google now has a solution for this issue.)

The item that ultimately drove our decision to disable and remove AMP was the cost of maintenance. Maintaining an AMP version was like having an extra theme applied to our website. Adding anything to the header, footer, sidebar, in-line ads, etc. required modifying two sets of code.

At this point I'm anti-AMP. The real issue should be page load times. Whether pages comply with the ever-changing AMP requirements shouldn't be important when it comes to page rankings.

I'm turned off by Google's push to make AMP a web standard. I'm in this camp: https://www.polemicdigital.com/google-amp-go-to-hell/.