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In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept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,
result.pushKV("changepos", change_position);
    return result;
},
    };
}
RPCHelpMan signrawtransactionwithwallet()
{
    return RPCHelpMan{"signrawtransactionwithwallet",
                "\nSign inputs for raw transaction (serialized, hex-encoded).\n"
                "The second optional argument (may be null) is an array of previous transaction outputs that\n"
                "this transaction depends on but may not yet be in the block chain." +
        HELP_REQUIRING_PASSPHRASE,
                {
                    {"hexstring", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The transaction hex string"},
                    {"prevtxs", RPCArg::Type::ARR, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED_NAMED_ARG, "The previous dependent transaction outputs",
                        {
                            {"", RPCArg::Type::OBJ, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "",
                                {
                                    {"txid", RPCArg::Type::STR_HEX, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The transaction id"},
                                    {"vout", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The output number"},
                                    {"scriptPubKey", RPCArg::Type::STR_HEX, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "script key"},
                                    {"redeemScript", RPCArg::Type::STR_HEX, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "(required for P2SH) redeem script"},
                                    {"witnessScript", RPCArg::Type::STR_HEX, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "(required for P2WSH or P2SH-P2WSH) witness script"},
                                    {"amount", RPCArg::Type::AMOUNT, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "(required for Segwit inputs) the amount spent"},
                                },
                            },
                        },
                    },
                    {"sighashtype", RPCArg::Type::STR,  "ALL", "The signature hash type. Must be one of\n"
            "       \"ALL\"\n"