No it didn't it made a pronouncement which is different from a ruling. The ICOs that it has charged so far didn't have an actual token associated with them so

No it didn't it made a pronouncement which is different from a ruling. The ICOs that it has charged so far didn't have an actual token associated with them so they were scams with a popular (edit: fashionable) name. I really hate that people on HN will down vote comments based on misunderstanding of information freely available.