If we permabanned smurfs, griefers, homophobes and racists, Would Dota be more profitable?

Genuine question.

We hear people complain about it on a daily basis.
– Smurfs ruining the balance of games
– Griefers getting upset for no reason
– Racists and homophobes

Yea, we can avoid. Yea, we can report.
Does it matter? I know a friend of mine got muted for 300 hours for being toxic. Seems like a lot, but I smiled when he said it.

But let’s imagine that Valve says: “We don’t want to permaban people. We want to just teach them a lesson by muting and give them a cool-down on ranked matches.”
What if Valve went the other way. Smacked down all smurfs. Banned all accounts that data could find.
Smacked down all who said “f*ggot” and the “n-word”, and if people who repeatedly destroyed their items, fed on purpose or abandoned, they would be deemed unworthy to be amongst other human beings.

Would Dota; in the end, be more profitable or less?
Would a strict-police game attract more players? Or would it lessen profits due to more people getting banned, less interplay between friends, less battle passes purchases, etc.?