467561 Virtual Card Review - Netherlands Visa Debit
Our log shows clean passes on Epic Games Store, Google Play, Steam, first charge and renewal both going through.
The first thing to know about 467561 is that it is not an anonymous range. Bitstack Card issues it in Netherlands and the Visa prefix is registered, which is why fewer merchants treat it as high risk.
Reading the 467561 prefix
- BIN
- 467561
- Card network
- Visa
- Issuing country
- Netherlands
- Card type
- Debit
- Issued by
- Bitstack Card
- Card form
- Virtual only
- KYC tier
- ID + proof
- 3-D Secure
- Not published
- AVS check
- No
- Billing address
- Custodial
- Funding methods
- Crypto
- Max cards per account
- Not published
- Issuer risk rating
- Medium
The money side
This is a Debit product, so there is no interest and no annual fee to model. Just €9.99 + delivery, no top-up fee and no FX markup. Compare on funding cost rather than signup fee. The funding side is what you pay every month for years.
| Card creation fee | €9.99 + delivery |
|---|---|
| Monthly fee | — |
| Top-up fee | — |
| FX / conversion fee | — |
| Declined transaction fee | — |
| Minimum top-up | — |
Results by merchant
Everything we pushed through this range, including the merchants it never cleared.
Merchant by merchant
| Merchant | Attempts | Cleared | Rate | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epic Games Store | 51 | 47 | 92% | first charge and renewal four weeks later both cleared |
| Google Play | 42 | 36 | 86% | cleared first time; a second charge a week later also went through |
| Steam | 32 | 26 | 81% | first charge and renewal four weeks later both cleared |
| PlayStation Network | 21 | 0 | 0% | Gateway risk rule fired and returned a generic decline with no challenge. |
| Nintendo eShop | 16 | 6 | 38% | 3-D Secure challenge never completed. The order timed out waiting for the OTP. |
Run from a Netherlands-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
The weak spot is PlayStation Network, which declined every time. Everything else was either clean or fixed by correcting the billing address.
What to change before you retry
- PlayStation Network: 0 of 21 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.
- Nintendo eShop: 6 of 16 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.
Getting it to work first time
- 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.
- Set the billing address to exactly what Bitstack Card generates for Netherlands. Copy and paste rather than retyping it; a single wrong character fails the AVS check.
- 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.
Our call
Worth having as a backup rather than a primary. When a merchant blocks the popular ranges, 467561 is usually still open. Treat the numbers here as a snapshot of 6 weeks, not a permanent rating.
What people ask us
What does the 467561 BIN tell a merchant?
It tells the risk engine three things before your bank is ever contacted: issuer Bitstack Card, country of issue Netherlands, product class Debit. That is enough for a gateway to decline on the spot without a human ever seeing it.
Is 467561 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 467561 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?
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
We bought a Bitstack Card card, funded it, and pushed 162 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. 115 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 24 August 2026 · 162 charges on record for this range.