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In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept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,
RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "", "",
                        {
                            {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "txid", "The transaction id."},
                            {RPCResult::Type::STR, "fee reason", "The transaction fee reason."}
                        },
                    },
                },
                RPCExamples{
                    "\nSend 0.1 BTC\n"
                    + HelpExampleCli("sendtoaddress", "\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" 0.1") +
                    "\nSend 0.1 BTC with a confirmation target of 6 blocks in economical fee estimate mode using positional arguments\n"
                    + HelpExampleCli("sendtoaddress", "\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" 0.1 \"donation\" \"sean's outpost\" false true 6 economical") +
                    "\nSend 0.1 BTC with a fee rate of 1.1 " + CURRENCY_ATOM + "/vB, subtract fee from amount, BIP125-replaceable, using positional arguments\n"
                    + HelpExampleCli("sendtoaddress", "\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" 0.1 \"drinks\" \"room77\" true true null \"unset\" null 1.1") +
                    "\nSend 0.2 BTC with a confirmation target of 6 blocks in economical fee estimate mode using named arguments\n"
                    + HelpExampleCli("-named sendtoaddress", "address=\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" amount=0.2 conf_target=6 estimate_mode=\"economical\"") +
                    "\nSend 0.5 BTC with a fee rate of 25 " + CURRENCY_ATOM + "/vB using named arguments\n"
                    + HelpExampleCli("-named sendtoaddress", "address=\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" amount=0.5 fee_rate=25")
                    + HelpExampleCli("-named sendtoaddress", "address=\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" amount=0.5 fee_rate=25 subtractfeefromamount=false replaceable=true avoid_reuse=true comment=\"2 pizzas\" comment_to=\"jeremy\" verbose=true")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const wallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!wallet) return NullUniValue;
    CWallet* const pwallet = wallet.get();
    
    
    pwallet->BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain();
    LOCK(pwallet->cs_wallet);