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In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept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{
                "listunspent",
                "\nReturns array of unspent transaction outputs\n"
                "with between minconf and maxconf (inclusive) confirmations.\n"
                "Optionally filter to only include txouts paid to specified addresses.\n",
                {
                    {"minconf", RPCArg::Type::NUM,  "1", "The minimum confirmations to filter"},
                    {"maxconf", RPCArg::Type::NUM,  "9999999", "The maximum confirmations to filter"},
                    {"addresses", RPCArg::Type::ARR,  "empty array", "The bitcoin addresses to filter",
                        {
                            {"address", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "bitcoin address"},
                        },
                    },
                    {"include_unsafe", RPCArg::Type::BOOL,  "true", "Include outputs that are not safe to spend\n"
                              "See description of \"safe\" attribute below."},
                    {"query_options", RPCArg::Type::OBJ, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED_NAMED_ARG, "JSON with query options",
                        {
                            {"minimumAmount", RPCArg::Type::AMOUNT,  "0", "Minimum value of each UTXO in " + CURRENCY_UNIT + ""},