This is not an editing error. A zero fingering in some publisher's urtext editions of keyboard music (e.g. Henle) is a heads-up that the same note is also written for the other hand (as when left and right hand figures coincide on a note). In this case, the note is being held by the other hand and is not to be restruck. A zero means that the note is also written for, and to be played with, the other hand.
Henle usually has a general comment (e.g. in the preface) about the fingering (e.g. all was done by the editor) or uses a combination of roman and italics to distinguish the editor's from the composer's (e.g. in Chopin). (In the case of Henle editions, the fingering is sometimes done by someone other than the editor.)
IMO, the fast tempo of the piece rather obviously rules out restriking the note and the way Scriabin (and other composers) notate this is much cleaner and clearer than writing a rest for the one hand.
The note isn't technically omitted -- only the (re)attack is. If you did play the note again with the left hand, you would be shortening the duration of the 2nd note of the corresponding r.h. triplet. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Another way of thinking about this is that, at tempo, the left- and right-hand notes effectively coincide, and since the right hand also has the melody, it logically should play the note. Also, you want to avoid entangling the hands.
Here is another example of a "zero" fingering from the new Henle edition of the Beethoven sonatas, edited by Norbert Gertsch and Murray Perahia, with fingerings by Murray Perahia:
Piano Sonata Op.31 N.1, Rondo
In m.133 the lower D in the r.h. is assigned a 0 because Beethoven wrote the same D in the left hand. It isn't practical to play the note with the r.h., because the l.h. has to restrike it.
From the composer's (as well as the structural and "musical") viewpoint, it would both ugly and pedantic to write a rest for one hand. It's clear in these cases that the pianist simply has to choose with which hand to play the note, which "belongs" to both hands. The editor is suggesting the more practical choice.
Another example can be found in the slow movement of Henle's edition of Schumann's Piano Trio Op.80, m.22:
The zero fingering is a suggestion to let the l.h. play the F sharp that is written for both hands, which leaves the r.h. thumb free to play the A. Without the heads-up, the pianist is likely to stumble the first time to figure out if it's a misprint or exactly what is going on in this spot with the apparent "colliding thumbs."
Examples of alternative editorial decisions: C.M. von Weber, Piano Sonata n.2 in Ab Major, Op.39, 8 measures from end of last movement. Paris ed. ca. 1836; Peters ed.; Liszt ed. (all from IMSLP)
The Paris edition alerts the pianist, who must still choose the hand. The Peters gives no "heads-up" that the same note is in both parts. Liszt assigns the note to one part only (using a rest instead of a zero fingering); however it gives the impression that that this is what the composer wrote.
With regard to the three tempi, I would point to the piece's title: it's a study. A range suggests that you pick a (one) tempo you like; three tempi perhaps suggest a progression for learning the piece.
