557754 Virtual Card Review - Netherlands Mastercard Debit
Our log shows clean passes on Google Play, App Store, Epic Games Store, first charge and renewal both going through.
Short entry for a range that punches above its weight. 557754 comes from Oobit, Netherlands, Mastercard, Debit. It is the card we hand people who have already failed twice elsewhere.
What 557754 actually is
- BIN
- 557754
- Card network
- Mastercard
- Issuing country
- Netherlands
- Card type
- Debit
- Issued by
- Oobit
- Card form
- Virtual only
- KYC tier
- ID + proof
- 3-D Secure
- Yes
- AVS check
- No
- Billing address
- Not published
- Funding methods
- Crypto · Bank transfer
- Max cards per account
- 1 card
- Issuer risk rating
- Medium
What it costs to run
Three lines decide it. Issuance: an undisclosed issuance fee. Funding: no top-up fee. Conversion: no FX markup. Cost is the reason this range sits where it does in our ranking rather than higher up.
| Card creation fee | — |
|---|---|
| Monthly fee | — |
| Top-up fee | — |
| FX / conversion fee | — |
| Declined transaction fee | — |
| Minimum top-up | — |
Where 557754 clears, and where it does not
Everything we pushed through this range, including the merchants it never cleared.
Merchant by merchant
| Merchant | Attempts | Cleared | Rate | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Play | 57 | 52 | 91% | cleared first time; a second charge a week later also went through |
| App Store | 46 | 41 | 89% | went through on a fresh card with the issuer's default address |
| Epic Games Store | 36 | 30 | 83% | first charge and renewal four weeks later both cleared |
| Hetzner | 23 | 0 | 0% | 3-D Secure challenge never completed. The order timed out waiting for the OTP. |
| Target | 18 | 6 | 33% | Soft decline on the retry after an earlier failure on the same account. |
Run from a Netherlands-region account between 26 Jul to 23 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
It failed twice on Hetzner, both times on an AVS mismatch rather than a range block. Setting the billing address to the issuer default fixed it.
What to change before you retry
- Hetzner: 0 of 23 cleared. Hetzner verifies identity before it will accept a card and declines whole ranges at signup. Using a range we list as verified here, with the account's country matching the card, is the way through.
- Target: 6 of 18 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.
Getting it to work first time
- Bank transfer is the cheap funding route here, but it is not instant. Top up a day before a renewal rather than the same morning.
- 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.
- Use the Netherlands address Oobit gives you, verbatim. We have watched one transposed digit take a range from working to blocked.
Where we land
Better than the anonymous ranges people find on forums, worse than the top-tier fintech products. Priced accordingly. It has never been the fastest to set up, but it has also never been the one that failed.
BIN questions, answered
What does the 557754 BIN tell a merchant?
In practice the checkout reads Oobit / Netherlands / Debit and decides. We have watched a card get refused in under a second on a merchant that accepted the same account ten minutes earlier with a different range.
Is 557754 a real card number?
No, and this trips people up. 557754 is a range identifier shared across every card Oobit issues in Netherlands. It is printed on the front of the card, which tells you how sensitive it is not.
Why would 557754 be declined if the range is fine?
Changing one variable at a time is the only way to diagnose this. Address first, then card, then the connection country. We have seen people change all three and learn nothing.
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 this test was run
We bought a Oobit card, funded it, and pushed 180 charges through live merchant checkout pages between 26 Jul to 23 Aug 2026. Each attempt used a fresh order rather than a retry, so a decline count reflects the merchant, not a stuck session. 129 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 31 August 2026 · 180 charges on record for this range.