The `Unpin` bound was originally added in rust-lang#56939 following the
recommendation of @withoutboats in
rust-lang#55766 (comment)

That comment does not give explicit justification for why the bound
should be added. The relevant context was:

> [ ] Remove `impl<P> Unpin for Pin<P>`
>
> This impl is not justified by our standard justification for unpin
> impls: there is no pointer direction between `Pin<P>` and `P`. Its
> usefulness is covered by the impls for pointers themselves.
>
> This futures impl (link to the impl changed in this PR) will need to
> change to add a `P: Unpin` bound.

The decision to remove the unconditional impl of `Unpin for Pin` is
sound (these days there is just an auto-impl for when `P: Unpin`). But,
I think the decision to also add the `Unpin` bound for `impl Future` may
have been unnecessary. Or if that's not the case, I'd be very interested
to have the argument for why written down somewhere. The bound _appears_
to not be needed, since the presence of a `Pin<P>` should indicate that
it's safe to project to `Pin<&mut P::Target>` just like for
`Pin::as_mut`.

Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>