BIN lookup · Visa · Singapore · log through 13 Sep 2026 14:40 UTC

417503 Virtual Card Review - Singapore Visa Debit

The takeaway

Tested across 4 weeks. App Store, Google Play, Steam held at or above 209 passes, and the failures clustered on two merchants only.

417503Visa SingaporeDebit 209/295 cleared

We added 417503 to the directory after it cleared a checkout that had already rejected two better-known ranges. It is a Debit Visa prefix from Exa Card, issued in Singapore.

417503 in plain terms

BIN
417503
Card network
Visa
Issuing country
Singapore
Card type
Debit
Issued by
Exa Card
Card form
Virtual only
KYC tier
ID + proof
3-D Secure
Not published
AVS check
No
Billing address
Self-custody
Funding methods
Crypto
Max cards per account
Not published
Issuer risk rating
Medium

Costs, stacked up

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 feeFree
Monthly fee
Top-up fee
FX / conversion fee
Declined transaction fee
Minimum top-up

Cleared versus declined

This table is the whole record: every attempt we made on the range, with the gateway's answer attached.

Merchant by merchant

MerchantAttemptsClearedRateWhat happened
App Store948489%cleared on the first attempt, no challenge issued
Google Play766586%cleared on the first attempt, no challenge issued
Steam595085%cleared first time; a second charge a week later also went through
PlayStation Network3800%Geo mismatch. The connection country did not match the card's country of issue.
Nintendo eShop281036%Soft decline on the retry after an earlier failure on the same account.

Run from a Singapore-region account between 24 Jul to 21 Aug 2026, with the billing address set to the issuer default unless noted. Declines were logged with the reason the gateway returned.

Failures we could not fix

Two merchants gave us trouble, PlayStation Network and Nintendo eShop. In both cases the decline came back as an issuer block rather than an address problem, which is not something you can fix from your side.

What to change before you retry

Setup notes for Exa Card

  1. Set the billing address to exactly what Exa Card generates for Singapore. Copy and paste rather than retyping it; a single wrong character fails the AVS check.
  2. 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.
  3. Funding is crypto-first. Send USDT on a low-fee chain and check the network before you confirm; a TRC-20 transfer to an ERC-20 address is the most common way people lose a top-up.

Final word

If your merchants are mostly in Singapore, 417503 is a reasonable default. If they are not, the no FX markup conversion cost will annoy you. Treat the numbers here as a snapshot of 4 weeks, not a permanent rating.

What people ask us

What does the 417503 BIN tell a merchant?

It tells the risk engine three things before your bank is ever contacted: issuer Exa Card, country of issue Singapore, product class Debit. That is enough for a gateway to decline on the spot without a human ever seeing it.

Is 417503 a real card number?

It is the first six of sixteen digits. The remaining ten identify the account, and only Exa Card can map those. A BIN alone will never get anyone into your money.

Why would 417503 be declined if the range is fine?

Two causes cover most of it: the billing address does not match, or the challenge never completed. Both look identical on screen, and both are fixable in under a minute.

Can thousands of people share the same BIN?

Shared by design. Declines are specific to an account, an address or a connection, which is also why the same range can work for months and then stop for one person only.

What we did

We bought a Exa Card card, funded it, and pushed 295 charges through live merchant checkout pages between 24 Jul to 21 Aug 2026. Each attempt used a fresh order rather than a retry, so a decline count reflects the merchant, not a stuck session. 209 cleared.

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 13 Sep 2026 14:40 UTC · rate last re-checked 25 August 2026 · 295 charges on record for this range.