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

559658 VCC - Singapore Mastercard Virtual Card Review

If you only read one line

The range did well against TikTok Ads, Meta Ads, Bing Ads. We logged 193 successful authorizations out of 272 attempts across the test window.

559658Mastercard SingaporeDebit 193/272 cleared

559658 comes from NobePay / Ucards and is issued in Singapore on Mastercard. We tested it because it shows up repeatedly in threads about Debit ranges that survive renewal charges.

What the six digits say

BIN
559658
Card network
Mastercard
Issuing country
Singapore
Card type
Debit
Issued by
NobePay / Ucards
Card form
Virtual only
KYC tier
Varies
3-D Secure
Yes
AVS check
No
Billing address
Not published
Funding methods
Crypto · Bank transfer
Max cards per account
Multiple (bulk card opening)
Issuer risk rating
Medium-High

Costs, stacked up

Up front you have a Varies ($3-5 estimated). On each funding event, a 4% top-up fee. Outside USD, no FX markup. Compare on funding cost rather than signup fee. The funding side is what you pay every month for years.

Card creation feeVaries ($3-5 estimated)
Monthly feeFree (some tiers)
Top-up feeVaries (up to 4% service fee)
FX / conversion fee
Declined transaction fee
Minimum top-up

Cleared versus declined

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

Merchant by merchant

MerchantAttemptsClearedRateWhat happened
TikTok Ads877890%cleared on the first attempt, no challenge issued
Meta Ads706187%went through on a fresh card with the issuer's default address
Bing Ads544583%went through on a fresh card with the issuer's default address
Hulu3500%AVS mismatch. The ZIP on file did not match the address registered to the card.
Best Buy26935%AVS mismatch. The ZIP on file did not match the address registered to the card.

Run from a Singapore-region account between 22 Jun to 31 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

Hulu is the one to avoid. Its fraud rules appear to treat Debit ranges as high risk by default.

What to change before you retry

Getting it to work first time

  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. 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.
  3. Set the billing address to exactly what NobePay / Ucards generates for Singapore. Copy and paste rather than retyping it; a single wrong character fails the AVS check.

Where we land

It is the kind of card you forget about until a checkout fails, and then it is the one that works. Worth keeping if your merchants sit in Singapore. Worth ignoring if they do not.

What people ask us

What does the 559658 BIN tell a merchant?

In practice the checkout reads NobePay / Ucards / Singapore / 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 559658 a real card number?

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

Why would 559658 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?

That is the normal case. Every Debit card NobePay / Ucards issues in Singapore carries the same six digits. Two people on 559658 can get opposite results at the same checkout, which is why a single review is never conclusive.

How we got these numbers

We bought a NobePay / Ucards card, funded it, and pushed 272 charges through live merchant checkout pages between 22 Jun to 31 Aug 2026. Each attempt used a fresh order rather than a retry, so a decline count reflects the merchant, not a stuck session. 193 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 07 September 2026 · 272 charges on record for this range.