Many of the things you're talking about doing as an editor are not... valuable. The idea that there is value in prestige for publishing has been a disaster for science. This is a concept that is only about 40 years old, it is not some great tradition of science. Prestige publishing is immensely useful to professors and publishers, but not anyone else. We are at a historic low point for production of science that is useful or interesting to the general public when looking at per scientist or per dollar spent. We are epically failing to identify, execute, and communicate important research. In short, scientists and publishers do not know what "high quality" means anymore! Our current definition is incorrect!
Typesetting, formatting, web-hosting, indexing... if the authors and funders of the paper are not willing to do these things well, the work is not worth publishing. Think about what it means for the people funding research to abandon responsibility for it to someone else. I keep either open license or white paper manuscript versions of as many of my papers as I can on my website - that website also has significant SEO and search indexing work put into it. I do that because my funders insist on it, because they believe in the value of the work. It is truly eye-opening when your funder actually values your work. NSF, DOE, DoD, and NIH all manage or fund repositories of all of the reports produced by their grants going back decades (most not available online because of lobbying by publishers). Sci-Hub has a limited lifetime until these various agencies finish their transition to publicly available hosting of all of their funded results.
So what are you providing, really? Prestige publishing is a marketing tool for your journal, not a value for science. Hosting and formatting is something that should be done by any competent scientific funder. It should worry all of us that it is necessary for you to do this. That leaves us with peer review and editing.
These are valuable additions to a paper, but these functions can also be accomplished differently. The most traditional approach for review, the face-to-face meeting with experts, is why you have the conference in the first place. People are paying you to take part in that process! Either the conference is not functioning as a place to seriously discuss research (maybe save those honoraria for good session moderators), or peer review of the conference papers is simply a hoop-jumping exercise.