t_h.end They claim to get new details every time we want with digicards but apparently it isn’t like that.
If that is claimed anywhere, it can only refer to the rotating CVC feature. Technically, the CVC is part of the card details, and it changing might have warranted someone from marketing to brand that as "changing card details" -- personally I wouldn't call it like that. DigiCards are simply virtual credit cards from bunq, with all the bells and whistles that bunq cards come with, but they don't change their card number after a payment.
Why can’t people like me and others in this thread have different card details for certain purchases when an extra layer of protection is needed? [...] Corporate greed.
Now that's an interesting discussion! Let's assume the limit doesn't exist, DigiCards would work just as you want them to be and every bunq user does 3 card payments per week. The number of users isn't public but let's go with 300.000 active users here (doesn't really matter because the system should still work even if bunq grows a bit). In a year, that is 46.8 million card payments and as such, we need at least the same number of different PANs. If mobile wallets are used with tokenization, then even more.
The account number inside of a PAN is just 7 digits. That means that, as long as a bank doesn't purchase new BIN ranges from Mastercard, they run out of numbers after 10 million cards. Hmm... and I have never seen an actual contract with Mastercard, but these can surely get pricey. With my rule-of-thumb estimate from above, we're looking at 6 or even 7 figures paid out to Mastercard every year. Does it work for Revolut? I guess so. Is it part of a sustainable business model? I would rather doubt that.
Sure, maybe we will get better standards in the future. Hopefully we won't even have to remember "card details" anymore or fill them in somewhere manually. But at least to me it doesn't seem like the card networks and the industry is there yet.