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In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept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,
"       \"" + FeeModes("\"\n\"") + "\""},
                    {"fee_rate", RPCArg::Type::AMOUNT,  "not set, fall back to wallet fee estimation", "Specify a fee rate in " + CURRENCY_ATOM + "/vB."},
                    {"verbose", RPCArg::Type::BOOL,  "false", "If true, return extra infomration about the transaction."},
                },
                {
                    RPCResult{"if verbose is not set or set to false",
                        RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "txid", "The transaction id for the send. Only 1 transaction is created regardless of\n"
                "the number of addresses."
                    },
                    RPCResult{"if verbose is set to true",
                        RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "", "",
                        {
                            {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "txid", "The transaction id for the send. Only 1 transaction is created regardless of\n"
                "the number of addresses."},
                            {RPCResult::Type::STR, "fee reason", "The transaction fee reason."}
                        },
                    },
                },
                RPCExamples{
            "\nSend two amounts to two different addresses:\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("sendmany", "\"\" \"{\\\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\\\":0.01,\\\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[1] + "\\\":0.02}\"") +
            "\nSend two amounts to two different addresses setting the confirmation and comment:\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("sendmany", "\"\" \"{\\\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\\\":0.01,\\\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[1] + "\\\":0.02}\" 6 \"testing\"") +
            "\nSend two amounts to two different addresses, subtract fee from amount:\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("sendmany", "\"\" \"{\\\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\\\":0.01,\\\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[1] + "\\\":0.02}\" 1 \"\" \"[\\\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\\\",\\\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[1] + "\\\"]\"") +
            "\nAs a JSON-RPC call\n"
            + HelpExampleRpc("sendmany", "\"\", {\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\":0.01,\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[1] + "\":0.02}, 6, \"testing\"")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{