While working on this PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18570 I ran into a bit confusing situation where in one function a **CWallet reference** was expected while two others dealt with **CWallet pointers**. My initial reaction was: `let's harmonize them by making them references`. However, not being part of the PR itself I did't change anything and completed the PR first.

Now, after having analyzed the `rpcwallet.cpp` code I came to the conclusion that:

* converting them all into references is not the solution as they're originally **shared_ptr**s
* but also: there is no (visible) reason why every RPC function should begin like this:

```cpp
std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
const CWallet* const pwallet = wallet.get();
```

This clearly defeats the purpose of shared pointers for no obvious reason. *Maybe I am missing something?*

In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept their original names (that is, *pwallet*). In the end, they're pointers too, so the most of the original code remained untouched.

However, some of the helper functions couldn't be changed because external code is accessing them and I didn't want to make this task "virulent". So I introduced new ("Ref") variants that expect **shared_ptr** parameters, namely: 

```cpp
void EnsureWalletRefIsUnlocked(const std::shared_ptr<CWallet>);
bool EnsureWalletRefIsAvailable(const std::shared_ptr<CWallet>, bool avoidException);
```

I have tested the code, with python and boost-tests, and could not find any errors. 
But before opening a PR I would like to open a discussion about this. 

Is there any reason to keep on working with raw pointers when every function call actually begins with *shared_ptr*s?

Regards,
throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_WRONG_ENC_STATE, "Error: running with an unencrypted wallet, but walletlock was called.");
    }
    pwallet->Lock();
    pwallet->nRelockTime = 0;
    return NullUniValue;
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan encryptwallet()
{
    return RPCHelpMan{"encryptwallet",
                "\nEncrypts the wallet with 'passphrase'. This is for first time encryption.\n"
                "After this, any calls that interact with private keys such as sending or signing \n"
                "will require the passphrase to be set prior the making these calls.\n"
                "Use the walletpassphrase call for this, and then walletlock call.\n"
                "If the wallet is already encrypted, use the walletpassphrasechange call.\n",
                {
                    {"passphrase", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The pass phrase to encrypt the wallet with. It must be at least 1 character, but should be long."},
                },
                RPCResult{RPCResult::Type::STR, "", "A string with further instructions"},
                RPCExamples{
            "\nEncrypt your wallet\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("encryptwallet", "\"my pass phrase\"") +
            "\nNow set the passphrase to use the wallet, such as for signing or sending bitcoin\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("walletpassphrase", "\"my pass phrase\"") +
            "\nNow we can do something like sign\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("signmessage", "\"address\" \"test message\"") +
            "\nNow lock the wallet again by removing the passphrase\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("walletlock", "") +
            "\nAs a JSON-RPC call\n"