Hi @eddya,
First and foremost - thank you for taking your time to familirase with my post and consideration provided by your comments. Now to your points:

1. The point is not whether one can or cannot activate SMTs post ICO. That I myself acknowledge in the post:

On the other hand by sequentially managing the wallets – opening the ICO wallet first, thereafter the Bancor wallet...

The point is about social signalling - once you announce Bancor integration, you have to commit to it. And likely (coz it's blockchain) in code. Thus rationally one would exclusively use it during ICO process and not enabling it post ICO. Why? because in order to creditably commit to Bancor devs would right an invoke function in their ICO contract, implying all what I've said above.

2 If devs can withdraw the connector, that implies that price cushioning mechanism can be withdrawn at any time. If so what is the point for Investors to invest in such ICO and forgo price appreciation if on the way down the protection offered by Bancor can be removed at any time? This looks like a bad deal.

3 You've made repeatedly comment about arb play. The point of arb play is not that it is an invisible hand Adam Smith's style that seeks to find equilibrium in resource allocation (which it does). The point is whose money the trader would be arbitraging. If I as an Investor deposit X and % of that X goes to Bancor connector then arbitrageur by buying at lower price and selling the token to Bancor is effectively withdrawing some of % of X (mine contribution to ICO), that would have otherwise be directed to developing the product. Compare it to current situation - devs raise money and then they use it to advance the product (how effective they are at doing it is outside of the discussion).

4 I've reread the Whitepaper and I could not find a passage that says that Banocor's tokens are explicitly backed by all other Bancor's tokens, that you seem to imply ( universal insurance). The farthest I've gone is the passage, that states Bancor can accept as collateral any other token for connector wallet, meaning limited recourse on that wallet only. Feel free to correct me by pointing to the passage you derive your argument from. Finally,

the nigh-impossible scenario

Really? You seem to forget
September 15, 2008