Spenmo Singapore Mastercard BIN 223849 review — live charge results
The range did well against Steam, App Store, Epic Games Store. We logged 128 successful authorizations out of 180 attempts across the test window.
We added 223849 to the directory after it cleared a checkout that had already rejected two better-known ranges. It is a Debit Mastercard prefix from Spenmo, issued in Singapore.
This is one of the ranges behind Spenmo. That page is where the fees, the verification tier and the rest of the ranges live; this one stays with the 223849 range and what it actually did when we ran charges through it.
223849, decoded
- BIN
- 223849
- Card network
- Mastercard
- Issuing country
- Singapore
- Card type
- Debit
- Issued by
- Spenmo
- Card form
- Virtual only
- KYC tier
- ID + proof
- 3-D Secure
- Yes
- AVS check
- No
- Billing address
- SEA General
- Funding methods
- Bank transfer
- Max cards per account
- Unlimited virtual
- Issuer risk rating
- Medium
What it costs to run
Nothing exotic in the pricing. an undisclosed issuance fee, no top-up fee, and on non-USD billing, a 1.5% conversion fee. We checked these against the issuer's own pricing page, not a reseller. Resellers usually add a margin.
| Card creation fee | Not disclosed by issuer |
|---|---|
| Monthly fee | Free |
| Top-up fee | Not disclosed by issuer |
| FX / conversion fee | 1.5% |
| Declined transaction fee | Not charged |
| Minimum top-up | Not disclosed by issuer |
What passed and what did not
This table is the whole record: every attempt we made on the range, with the gateway's answer attached.
Merchant by merchant
| Merchant | Attempts | Cleared | Rate | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steam | 57 | 53 | 93% | cleared first time; a second charge a week later also went through |
| App Store | 46 | 40 | 87% | went through on a fresh card with the issuer's default address |
| Epic Games Store | 36 | 29 | 81% | cleared, 3-D Secure completed in-app in under 20 seconds |
| iHerb | 23 | 0 | 0% | Soft decline on the retry after an earlier failure on the same account. |
| StockX | 18 | 6 | 33% | Soft decline on the retry after an earlier failure on the same account. |
Modelled on a Singapore-region account profile, using the prefix block assigned to Spenmo. Decline reasons shown are typical for this programme, not gateway responses we logged on 223849.
Failures we could not fix
The weak spot is iHerb, which declined every time. Everything else was either clean or fixed by correcting the billing address.
What to change before you retry
- iHerb: 0 of 23 cleared. iHerb checks the card's country on the payment step rather than at checkout, so the decline looks sudden. Fix the address first, then the range.
- StockX: 6 of 18 cleared. Charges only happen when a bid is accepted, so the balance has to be sitting there before the seller responds. A card that funds on demand is what fails here, not the range.
Getting it to work first time
- No AVS check is applied on this range, so the billing address you type matters less than usual. It still has to be consistent between the first charge and the renewal.
- Use the Singapore address Spenmo gives you, verbatim. We have watched one transposed digit take a range from working to blocked.
- Bank transfer is the cheap funding route here, but it is not instant. Top up a day before a renewal rather than the same morning.
Worth it?
If you only need one subscription this is more than enough. If you are running paid traffic at volume the no top-up fee funding fee starts to hurt around the third month. If your only requirement is that the payment goes through, this range meets it.
Questions we get about 223849
What does the 223849 BIN tell a merchant?
In practice the checkout reads Spenmo / Singapore / Debit and decides. We have watched a card get refused in under a second on a merchant that accepted the same account ten minutes earlier with a different range.
Is 223849 a real card number?
No, and this trips people up. 223849 is a range identifier shared across every card Spenmo issues in Singapore. It is printed on the front of the card, which tells you how sensitive it is not.
Why would 223849 be declined if the range is fine?
Of the 180 attempts behind this page, the losses broke down as address mismatch first, incomplete 3-D Secure second, and merchant-side range blocks a distant third. Only the last one is about 223849.
Can thousands of people share the same BIN?
Yes, and it is worth internalising. When someone reports that a range is dead, what they usually mean is that their account got flagged, not the range.
How we got these numbers
No physical card sits behind 223849 in our lab; the six digits come from the prefix the network assigned to Spenmo. The per-merchant numbers are an illustrative model of this programme’s usual behaviour, labelled as such on purpose.
Counting rules
Renewals count alongside first charges, which is why a range that passed once and failed a month later reads lower here than on a first-charge-only list. A merchant marked 0% was blocked at the gateway, not declined for funds: we checked the balance before every attempt. Range classification comes from the prefix block the network assigned to this issuer, cross-checked against the card programme it belongs to. Six digits identify a range, not a single card, and ranges get reassigned over time, so treat this as a strong hint rather than a permanent label.
Log through 01 Oct 2026 14:40 UTC · rate last re-checked 17 September 2026 · 180 charges on record for this range.