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In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept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,
{
    return RPCHelpMan{"listreceivedbyaddress",
                "\nList balances by receiving address.\n",
                {
                    {"minconf", RPCArg::Type::NUM,  "1", "The minimum number of confirmations before payments are included."},
                    {"include_empty", RPCArg::Type::BOOL,  "false", "Whether to include addresses that haven't received any payments."},
                    {"include_watchonly", RPCArg::Type::BOOL,  "true for watch-only wallets, otherwise false", "Whether to include watch-only addresses (see 'importaddress')"},
                    {"address_filter", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED_NAMED_ARG, "If present, only return information on this address."},
                },
                RPCResult{
                    RPCResult::Type::ARR, "", "",
                    {
                        {RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "", "",
                        {
                            {RPCResult::Type::BOOL, "involvesWatchonly", "Only returns true if imported addresses were involved in transaction"},
                            {RPCResult::Type::STR, "address", "The receiving address"},
                            {RPCResult::Type::STR_AMOUNT, "amount", "The total amount in " + CURRENCY_UNIT + " received by the address"},
                            {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "confirmations", "The number of confirmations of the most recent transaction included"},
                            {RPCResult::Type::STR, "label", "The label of the receiving address. The default label is \"\""},
                            {RPCResult::Type::ARR, "txids", "",
                            {
                                {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "txid", "The ids of transactions received with the address"},
                            }},
                        }},
                    }