Would it be completely unreasonable to allow `fundrawtransaction` to use unsafe outputs?

I understand this means the resulting transaction may be invalidated whenever the unsafe output I'm relying one disappears (e.g. because the transaction that produced it was RBF-ed) but in my case that's ok, I'll react to that and re-publish the tree of child transactions accordingly.

But let me know if you think that's too much of a footgun for users, in that case I'll architect my solution differently.
}},
                    }
                },
                RPCExamples{
                    HelpExampleCli("listreceivedbyaddress", "")
            + HelpExampleCli("listreceivedbyaddress", "6 true")
            + HelpExampleRpc("listreceivedbyaddress", "6, true, true")
            + HelpExampleRpc("listreceivedbyaddress", "6, true, true, \"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\"")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!pwallet) return NullUniValue;
    
    
    pwallet->BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain();
    LOCK(pwallet->cs_wallet);
    return ListReceived(*pwallet, request.params, false);
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan listreceivedbylabel()
{
    return RPCHelpMan{"listreceivedbylabel",
                "\nList received transactions by label.\n",
                {
                    {"minconf", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Default{1}, "The minimum number of confirmations before payments are included."},
                    {"include_empty", RPCArg::Type::BOOL, RPCArg::Default{false}, "Whether to include labels that haven't received any payments."},
                    {"include_watchonly", RPCArg::Type::BOOL, RPCArg::DefaultHint{"true for watch-only wallets, otherwise false"}, "Whether to include watch-only addresses (see 'importaddress')"},
                },