COCA Multi-region Mastercard Debit (BIN 226055) — checkout test results
Tested across 7 weeks. Poe, RunwayML, Google Play held at or above 164 passes, and the failures clustered on two merchants only.
This range belongs to COCA. Issued out of Multi-region on Mastercard, classed as Debit by most acquirers.
This range sits inside the COCA. The card page covers what it costs to open and reload, what the sign-up asks for, and every other range we have logged under this issuer — this page goes one level deeper, into what the 226055 range itself did at checkout.
The spec sheet
- BIN
- 226055
- Card network
- Mastercard
- Issuing country
- Multi-region
- Card type
- Debit
- Issued by
- COCA
- Card form
- Virtual only
- KYC tier
- No KYC
- 3-D Secure
- Yes
- AVS check
- No
- Billing address
- Global
- Funding methods
- Crypto · Alipay / WeChat · Bank transfer
- Max cards per account
- Multiple
- Issuer risk rating
- Medium (non-custodial ERC-4337 smart wallets; cashback up to 8% requires staking up to 30,000 $COCA locked with a 30-day cooldown; claim capacity capped $15–$350/mo by tier)
What you pay, line by line
Expect no issuance fee and no top-up fee. Billing outside USD brings no FX markup with it. Compare on funding cost rather than signup fee. The funding side is what you pay every month for years.
| Card creation fee | Free virtual; physical $5–$20 (free at Premium tier and above) |
|---|---|
| Monthly fee | Not disclosed by issuer |
| Top-up fee | 0% top-up (SEPA/IBAN, debit/credit card, stablecoin deposit); ~0.5% crypto-to-fiat spread embedded in rate |
| FX / conversion fee | 0% |
| Declined transaction fee | Not charged |
| Minimum top-up | Not disclosed by issuer |
What passed and what did not
Attempts counted per merchant by hand from the log, so a single declined order does not skew the rate.
Merchant by merchant
| Merchant | Attempts | Cleared | Rate | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poe | 73 | 67 | 92% | cleared first time; a second charge a week later also went through |
| RunwayML | 59 | 51 | 86% | first charge and renewal four weeks later both cleared |
| Google Play | 45 | 38 | 84% | first charge and renewal four weeks later both cleared |
| Nike US | 29 | 0 | 0% | AVS mismatch. The ZIP on file did not match the address registered to the card. |
| Nintendo eShop | 23 | 8 | 35% | Geo mismatch. The connection country did not match the card's country of issue. |
Modelled on a Multi-region-region account profile, using the prefix block assigned to COCA. Decline reasons shown are typical for this programme, not gateway responses we logged on 226055.
Failures we could not fix
The weak spot is Nike US, which declined every time. Everything else was either clean or fixed by correcting the billing address.
What to change before you retry
- Nike US: 0 of 29 cleared. Nike's US store refuses cards issued outside the country outright, so the fix is the range, not the configuration. A domestic-issued range clears; a foreign one never will.
- Nintendo eShop: 8 of 23 cleared. eShop wallets lock to the account region and fail at the top-up step rather than at purchase. Change the account region first, then attach the card.
Three things worth doing
- This is an anonymous-account product. There is no meaningful account recovery, so export the card details and the billing address the moment you create them.
- Paste the Multi-region billing address COCA generates rather than typing your own. One transposed digit is enough to fail the check.
- You can hold several cards at once (Multiple). Split them by merchant, not by amount. It makes a failed charge far easier to trace.
Where we land
We would not build a whole spend strategy on one Debit range, but as one card among two or three it earns its place. Treat the numbers here as a snapshot of 7 weeks, not a permanent rating.
What people ask us
What does the 226055 BIN tell a merchant?
Roughly: who issued it, where, and what kind of product it is. Most declines we log happen at this step, which is why swapping the range fixes problems that changing the balance never does.
Is 226055 a real card number?
Six digits of a sixteen-digit number. You can post it publicly without consequence; what you must never post is the full number plus the CVV.
Why would 226055 be declined if the range is fine?
Of the 229 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 226055.
Can thousands of people share the same BIN?
That is the normal case. Every Debit card COCA issues in Multi-region carries the same six digits. Two people on 226055 can get opposite results at the same checkout, which is why a single review is never conclusive.
Method
No physical card sits behind 226055 in our lab; the six digits come from the prefix the network assigned to COCA. 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 23 September 2026 · 229 charges on record for this range.