The majority of us (i.e., the sorts of people interested enough in photography to post in a place like this) would be willing to do so...and in many cases we did, paying a LOT more than a mere 100-200 for a camera with IBIS.
The M50 is not meant for us. Begging for a feature that we know is expensive and saying we're willing to pay extra for it, is simply telling Canon that we're really interested in a different model, please upsell us. They're not going to abandon the M50s price point because some of their customers would rather have a more expensive camera. Especially not when the M50 as it is today sells VERY well. But somehow people saw this as an announcement of a latest and greatest model and assess it on that basis, instead of the one they should be using, which is: is it a good camera for its price point?
It absolutely is. Your complaint is off base because you're complaining it's inappropriate for a price point it's not even aimed at.
(And for the record: I personally own a (no mark number) M50 and never noticed this problem, perhaps because I usually adapt a big-ass lens on it (e.g., a Tamron 18-400) that may be heavy enough to damp the vibration, or even sometimes a native EF-M Tamron 18-200, which again is bigger and heavier than anything Canon ever made for the M series. That being said, I've hardly used it since I got my M6-II (which would be that higher model, even if it has no IBIS).)
Your answer of course makes sense. But it is difficult to accept for me, if there are no other models to have IBIS with? Of course if it would be clear, that the M5 II or the M6 III are in the pipeline or at least planned, I would not bring up the argument. So once again, I will patiently wait, as I did with the R and RP and now I can collect the money to get R5 for our wedding business, which finally has the features I wished for.