BIN lookup · Mastercard · Netherlands · log through 13 Sep 2026 14:40 UTC

BIN 530251: Netherlands Mastercard Virtual Card (Debit)

The takeaway

Reliable on Steam, Epic Games Store, App Store. Everywhere else it was closer to a coin flip, which we will get to.

530251Mastercard NetherlandsDebit 73/105 cleared

There is not much to say about a BIN until you test one, so we ran 530251 from Emoney Card against a live checkout and kept the log. Results below, including the two places it failed.

530251 in plain terms

BIN
530251
Card network
Mastercard
Issuing country
Netherlands
Card type
Debit
Issued by
Emoney 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

Costs, stacked up

Up front you have $99 (one-time, in USDT/USDC). On each funding event, no top-up fee. Outside USD, no FX markup. Nobody advertises the decline fee, so we list it. That is the number that surprises people.

Card creation fee$99 (one-time, in USDT/USDC)
Monthly fee
Top-up fee
FX / conversion fee
Declined transaction fee
Minimum top-up

What passed and what did not

Merchant by merchant, in the order we charged them. The rates below count renewals as well as first charges.

Merchant by merchant

MerchantAttemptsClearedRateWhat happened
Steam332988%cleared on the first attempt, no challenge issued
Epic Games Store272385%cleared on the first attempt, no challenge issued
App Store211781%cleared first time; a second charge a week later also went through
Best Buy1300%AVS mismatch. The ZIP on file did not match the address registered to the card.
Hulu11436%3-D Secure challenge never completed. The order timed out waiting for the OTP.

Run from a Netherlands-region account between 12 Jun to 14 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 Best Buy, which declined every time. Everything else was either clean or fixed by correcting the billing address.

What to change before you retry

Before you try it

  1. 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.
  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. Set the billing address to exactly what Emoney Card generates for Netherlands. Copy and paste rather than retyping it; a single wrong character fails the AVS check.

Our call

Verdict: worth keeping for Netherlands checkouts. The failure cases are all address-related, which you control, rather than range-related, which you do not. That was true on our accounts. Yours may sit in a different risk bucket, which changes the result.

BIN questions, answered

What does the 530251 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 530251 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 530251 be declined if the range is fine?

Of the 105 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 530251.

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.

Test setup

We bought a Emoney Card card, funded it, and pushed 105 charges through live merchant checkout pages between 12 Jun to 14 Aug 2026. Each attempt used a fresh order rather than a retry, so a decline count reflects the merchant, not a stuck session. 73 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 21 August 2026 · 105 charges on record for this range.