Brake biasing is precisely calculated by the OEM engineers based on the car's static weight distribution as well as its suspension design and how that affects weight transfer characteristics on braking). This isn't something that is subject to trends or perceived public preference. You can get a sense of some of the calculation and design parameters here:
Speed-Wiz braking calculation
Fact is... Stinger has a fairly even front-rear weight distribution. The lighter trims (e.g., 2.0T RWD) is likely very close to a perfect 50:50. This is one of the primary design input parameters in the brake design calcs. The end results are the piston areas, friction material and rotor sizing, and thermal mass (rotor thickness), etc.
So... it isn't surprising that Stinger front and rear brakes are nowhere near as front heavy as your typical FWD cars, whose weight distribution could be as high as 65:35. That's why a lot of FWD cars - even performance-oriented ones - have puny little rear brakes. Meanwhile, rear engine cars like the 911 have ginormous rear brake, often larger than their front counterparts.
Add to this that Stinger has a fairly long wheelbase for its size, and has a relatively low Center of Mass. Both of these factors conspire to limit the amount of weight transfer on braking and further equalizes braking force balance front/aft.
That said, Stinger clearly still has a brake force differential that is biased toward the front. Not huge, but quite obvious based on caliper/rotor sizing. Now then, mfrs tend to size the friction material accordingly, so that both front and rear consumables (pads + rotors) wear at comparable rates. This is mostly for maintenance convenience sake. However, they don't always hit it perfectly. Driving habits/conditions vary too.
Another thing to keep in mind... brake friction material wear rate is not linear throughout its service life. The thinner the material, the faster the wear rate accelerates. This means a relatively small amount of material wear differential when the pads are still mostly new could later accelerate into a much larger difference in remaining pad thickness. This can give a false sense of wear rate differential.
So... to make a long story short, don't fuss over brake pad wear rate. Brake pads - even premium ones - aren't that expensive. Not compared to other consumables (like tires) anyway. Not uncommon to read about guys here gladly blowing $1200+ on a brand new set of gumshoes, many of which don't survive past 20k miles. Even a $400 set of track pads will easily last longer than that. A $200 set of regular street pad will likely go twice that many miles or more.
