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.
{
    if (chain.isInitialBlockDownload()) {
        return false;
    }
    constexpr int64_t MAX_ANTI_FEE_SNIPING_TIP_AGE = 8 * 60 * 60;  in seconds
    int64_t block_time;
    CHECK_NONFATAL(chain.findBlock(block_hash, FoundBlock().time(block_time)));
    if (block_time < (GetTime() - MAX_ANTI_FEE_SNIPING_TIP_AGE)) {
        return false;
    }
    return true;
}
**
 * Return a height-based locktime for new transactions (uses the height of the
 * current chain tip unless we are not synced with the current chain
 *
static uint32_t GetLocktimeForNewTransaction(interfaces::Chain& chain, const uint256& block_hash, int block_height)
{
    uint32_t locktime;
     Discourage fee sniping.
    
     For a large miner the value of the transactions in the best block and
     the mempool can exceed the cost of deliberately attempting to mine two
     blocks to orphan the current best block. By setting nLockTime such that
     only the next block can include the transaction, we discourage this
     practice as the height restricted and limited blocksize gives miners
     considering fee sniping fewer options for pulling off this attack.