441433 Virtual Card Review - Singapore Visa Debit
Tested across 6 weeks. Poe, App Store, Midjourney held at or above 98 passes, and the failures clustered on two merchants only.
441433 comes from Tangem Pay and is issued in Singapore on Visa. We tested it because it shows up repeatedly in threads about Debit ranges that survive renewal charges.
441433, decoded
- BIN
- 441433
- Card network
- Visa
- Issuing country
- Singapore
- Card type
- Debit
- Issued by
- Tangem Pay
- Card form
- Virtual only
- KYC tier
- ID + proof
- 3-D Secure
- Yes
- AVS check
- No
- Billing address
- Global
- Funding methods
- Crypto
- Max cards per account
- Multiple
- Issuer risk rating
- Medium
Costs, stacked up
The first charge carries no issuance fee. Every charge after it carries no top-up fee, and outside USD, no FX markup. The fee table is short enough to read in full, which is rarer in this category than it should be.
| Card creation fee | Free |
|---|---|
| Monthly fee | Free |
| 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
| Merchant | Attempts | Cleared | Rate | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poe | 43 | 40 | 93% | cleared first time; a second charge a week later also went through |
| App Store | 35 | 31 | 89% | cleared first time; a second charge a week later also went through |
| Midjourney | 27 | 22 | 81% | no friction, and no AVS prompt |
| Target | 17 | 0 | 0% | AVS mismatch. The ZIP on file did not match the address registered to the card. |
| PlayStation Network | 15 | 5 | 33% | Soft decline on the retry after an earlier failure on the same account. |
Run from a Singapore-region account between 10 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, Target and PlayStation Network. 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
- Target: 0 of 17 cleared. Target runs an address check on first orders. Set the card's billing address to the issuer default, use a ZIP in the same state as the account, and place the order from a stable connection.
- PlayStation Network: 5 of 15 cleared. Store credit is region-bound, so the card and the wallet have to be in the same region. Fund the wallet from a matching range rather than attaching the card directly.
Before you try it
- 3-D Secure is supported, so install the issuer app before your first charge. The OTP arrives in-app, and the checkout will time out while you are looking for it in your messages.
- 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.
- Use the Singapore address Tangem Pay gives you, verbatim. We have watched one transposed digit take a range from working to blocked.
Our call
We would not build a whole spend strategy on one Debit range, but as one card among two or three it earns its place. No range stays clean forever, so check back before you rely on it for a large charge.
What people ask us
What does the 441433 BIN tell a merchant?
It tells the risk engine three things before your bank is ever contacted: issuer Tangem Pay, 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 441433 a real card number?
No, and this trips people up. 441433 is a range identifier shared across every card Tangem Pay issues in Singapore. It is printed on the front of the card, which tells you how sensitive it is not.
Why would 441433 be declined if the range is fine?
Of the 137 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 441433.
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.
How this test was run
We bought a Tangem Pay card, funded it, and pushed 137 charges through live merchant checkout pages between 10 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. 98 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 27 August 2026 · 137 charges on record for this range.