Back in the heyday, Peter Currie was the money man to see in Silicon Valley.

As CFO of Netscape Communications, he led the start-up into history, as the first great Internet rocket ship, when it went public on Aug. 9, 1995.

With the first consumer-friendly browser software, which made the Web easily understandable to the masses, Netscape was at the red-hot center of the nascent digital revolution.

“Wall Street went bonkers,” said one news reporter about the IPO, and the craziness did not stop for quite a while.

Rising to insane levels, the stock was ground zero of the Internet gold rush too, despite the fact that it had no profits to speak of.

But it did have a 23-year-old co-founder and tech wunderkind in Marc Andreessen, and a growth trajectory that was astounding.

If you think it sounds somewhat similar to Facebook today–where Currie will now help out as temporary financial adviser after the social-networking site parted ways with its CFO, Gideon Yu, yesterday, following mutual disagreements and announced a search for a replacement–you are correct.

In that job, the 53-year-old Currie will be helping Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg, 24, navigate–albeit temporarily–through some stormy economics seas on a journey that will hopefully end in an initial public offering.

The search for a new CFO will also involve Currie, obviously, and will be conducted by Jim Citrin of Spencer Stuart.

But until a new CFO is in place, Facebook’s quest still entails sorting out a substantive advertising monetization strategy while also keeping up its speedy growth rates and managing the high costs that mount with its popularity.

That certainly was Netscape’s major challenge, which it never met successfully and which was made worse by intense attacks from Microsoft (MSFT) on Netscape’s core browser business.

That eventually led to the antitrust trial against the software giant, even as Netscape saw its star fall dramatically.

It was sold to AOL in 1998 for $4 billion, a shadow of its bubble valuation, and is now more of a footnote than an ongoing tech product (although the now-popular Mozilla browser is a direct descendant of Netscape).

In fact, in 2008, Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL dropped its support for the Netscape browser and said it was no longer releasing new versions.

Still, a lot of former Netscape execs now hold other key jobs in the Web space.

Its investor relations exec, Quincy Smith, now heads up the digital arm of CBS (CBS), for example.

And Andreessen has started a number of companies and has transformed himself into an kind of elder statesman of Silicon Valley of late, as well as a newly minted venture investor.

Andreessen, many sources said, was a shadow influence on Zuckerberg’s decisions related to Yu, with whom relations had gotten tense, and to bring in Currie (pictured here).

Currie is certainly a great choice, in terms of the close-knit tech sector’s respect and experience.

Currie is also unusually tall, aggressively avuncular and laid-back, loves Elvis and enjoys pranking reporters like BoomTown. (Case in point: He once tried to spread the rumor that I am short due to a medical condition.)

Now the president of Currie Capital, a private investment firm, he had previously worked at General Atlantic in private equity.

After Netscape, he was a partner and co-founder of the Barksdale Group, an early-stage venture capital firm.

Before Netscape, he was CFO of McCaw Cellular Communications and also worked at Morgan Stanley (MS).

Currie is also board-happy, serving as a director of a variety of tech firms, private and public. They have included CNET Networks, Critical Path, Clearwire (CLWR), Safeco, Ofoto, Tellme Networks and Zantaz, as well as Sun Microsystems (JAVA).

He has an MBA from Stanford University and went to Williams College.

Here is the video interview I did with Currie and others at an event to support his friend and former Netscape exec Mike Homer, who recently died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (Currie is at the 2:16-minute mark):

(Image of Netscape IPO T-shirt courtesy of intothefuzz on Flickr.)

Facebook CFO Gideon Yu (pictured here) is leaving Facebook, as the company announced internally today that it was replacing him and searching for a new CFO on the path to an eventual IPO.

The Wall Street Journal also reported the news, noting that the huge social-networking start-up was looking for a CFO with “public company experience.”

But several sources within the company said the departure was more due to an increasingly strained relationship between Yu and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg over strategic disagreements about a wide range of issues, from increasing advertising revenue to fund-raising discussions with investors.

“At Facebook, you’re either with Mark or you’re not,” said one source at the 800-person company, located in Palo Alto, Calif., and founded five years ago. “And, if you’re not, you leave.”

As a sign of that, Yu was out of the company HQ immediately today after a meeting, said several sources.

Facebook confirmed the move in a statement, focusing instead on its hope for an IPO sometime in the future:

“Facebook confirms that CFO Gideon Yu will be leaving the company. Gideon has played an important role in helping us achieve our financial success, building a strong finance team and establishing the core financial operations of our company. We are grateful to Gideon for his contributions to Facebook and what we are trying to accomplish. Despite the poor economic climate, we are pleased that our financial performance is strong and we are well positioned for the next stage of our growth. We have retained Spencer Stuart to lead our search for a new CFO and will be looking for someone with public company experience.”

In addition, trying to stanch the rumors of its financial weakness and need to raise more funds, Facebook said in its internal memo to staff that it was on the path toward a public offering soon, with revenue growth up 70 percent in 2009 and EBITDA profitability this year, and that it would be cash-flow positive in 2010.

The memo also painted Yu’s departure as another step toward its much anticipated IPO, although it is clearly an ouster of much more complex internal reasons about how Facebook is run.

Facebook has had a lot of those in its short history.

From come-and-then-gone Google tech exec Ben Ling to former COO Owen Van Natta to the pair who started Facebook with Zuckerberg, the fast-growing start-up has seen more executive turnover and turmoil than most big companies.

In fact, Yu–who was an exec at both Yahoo (YHOO) and YouTube and integral to its sale to Google–replaced former CFO Mike Sheridan in 2007, in another case of a key exec being replaced.

Some inside and outside the company were quick to blame COO Sheryl Sandberg for Yu’s departure–probably due to the fact that the pair’s relationship was initially tense when the well-known Google exec arrived a year ago. That has been much less so of late, sources said.

And while Facebook can be a highly political place, with an unusual level of passive-aggressive infighting among execs, it is also a place where Zuckerberg and his wishes firmly hold sway.

And those wishes included the fact that Zuckerberg has long and publicly maintained that Facebook’s growth was paramount over a focus on monetization of the service.

Yu is known internally to be more conservative fiscally, pushing on Zuckerberg to ramp ad revenue more quickly and to consider a range of options outside of IPO, including selling the company.

Many current and former execs had hoped the company would IPO, a process that has been dragged out due to the weaker economy. But–barring that–many had also hoped it would sell to a larger company like Google (GOOG) or Microsoft (MSFT).

In fact, Microsoft has expressed interest in buying Facebook many times, and it was Yu and Van Natta who were key to getting the software giant to outbid Google to invest in the company at an astounding $15 billion valuation.

After raising more than $500 million previously, Yu has more recently been busy working with top execs on the best way to raise more funds for Facebook, in order to allow it grow faster and give it a deeper financial cushion.

High user growth has blown past Facebook’s internal projections, which is both an audience blessing and a cost curse.

But that fund raising has been at a much lower valuation and in a very weak economic climate, adding to stress internally at Facebook, many said.

Yu has held a number of meetings with investors, many of whom have told me they have asked him consistently about the monetization issues at Facebook and exactly when Zuckerberg would turn on the ad spigot at the service.

Yu has also has been involved in some recent debt financing of equipment, which is not as unusual for a fast-growing company as some recent reports have portrayed it, although that might also have been a source of tensions.

How to answer prospective new investors has probably been at the heart of his problems with Zuckerberg, who has been known to run hot and cold on top managers, especially with those who disagree with him too much.

That was clearly the case with Yu.

But, said many execs at the company, Zuckerberg’s conviction that growth is key over all other concerns–about which the company today is taking the edge off by noting sunnier financial results in the internal document–has been the correct one.

Currently, Facebook is veering in on 200 million users, which represents an astounding accomplishment.

But how it is going to take those numbers and make Facebook into a revenue-rich company on par with its increasing power on the Web is the question it will face until, of course, it does.

Besides the current drama over Yu today, Facebook has also recently been embroiled in unhappiness about its recent redesign and separately, about onerous changes to its Terms of Service.

Facebook has since backtracked on both issues, likely adding to the level of pressure on Zuckerberg and top execs.

And that is not even mentioning the curse of the Winklevii–it seems the fun never stops at Facebook HQ!

On an actually more amusing note, I once nicknamed Yu “Death Cat.”

As I wrote in mid-2007:

“Like that cat named Oscar who can detect death, Yu seems to have an amazing ability to get a sweet job at the hot Web company of the moment at just the right time. Case in point: He left Yahoo as its treasurer and went to YouTube as its CFO just a month before it sold to Google for $1.6 billion, a deal in which Yu apparently played a key role. Then, on his way to a spot as a junior partner at also-hot VC firm Sequoia Capital, he grabbed the Facebook CFO job in July. I say we watch where Yu goes and follow stealthily behind so as not to be detected.”

It’s more than likely Yu will pop up again soon in Silicon Valley in another prominent CFO job or as a venture investor. Although, after today’s events, this digital cat has definitely lost one life.

Last week, the economy took a much needed breather from its toilet-circling behavior of late, with the stock market showing gains for several days running.

Who knows what today will bring, given all the volatility. But most of the big consumer-focused digital companies–I am using Yahoo (YHOO), Google (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), Apple (AAPL) and Amazon (AMZN) as proxies for the sector–saw solid upticks over the last five days.

Yahoo shares rose close to four percent, Google was up just over five percent, Microsoft gained almost nine percent, while Amazon leaped 11.3 percent and Apple shot up 12.5 percent.

You could also feel the revelry from afar at the South by Southwest gathering that started this weekend in Austin, Texas, with lots of Web 2.0 partying and discussions of a Twitterific-Facebooktastic future.

Maybe happy days are here again, right?

Um, nope, just as when BoomTown wrote last September in a piece called: “Dear Web 2.0: It’s Still the Economy, Stupid!”

At the time, I wrote:

“Most companies in Web 2.0–despite their massive valuations over the last few years–-aren’t going to have the chance get frothy and light enough to become so poppable.

Instead, most will likely fizzle away quietly, with no exits in sight as the economy weakens and puts a vise grip on companies that cannot survive the very tough financial road ahead.”

Why? Well, because there still is no traction in sight for a true recovery and there will not be any for quite a while.

You need only to look at those big public companies and their stock market performance over the last six months, the true scoreboard, results that will iterate downward throughout the sector.

And, it has been exactly as the econalypse has advertised: Yahoo down 28.3 percent; Microsoft down almost 38 percent; Google dropping 25.2 percent; Amazon off 11.3 percent; and Apple dipping 31.6 percent.

And, of course, most expect that the next round of first-quarter earnings, coming around the end of April, to be weak overall for this group, given their reliance on consumer spending, advertising and general bonhomie that is surely lacking.

That, in turn, means few acquisitions and still no IPOs for Web 2.0 companies. Although only Facebook is likely to try for that gold ring, its prospects are still uneven at best, despite impressive audience growth at the social-networking site.

So, as I said before and will say again: It’s the economy, and Silicon Valley–as was true six months ago–is still not immune.

One bright light when it does manage to turn is that tech will likely see the first bounce, especially compared to pretty much all the other sectors of the economy.

Tech companies are relatively healthy with strong cash balance sheets and have shown a commitment to making cost cuts and layoffs that are long past due.

That’s all good. But, of course, the only thing that will send this all back into truly positive territory will be new products and innovations to introduce when the world is ready to spend again and grow.

As in: A lot more nose to the grindstone and a lot less party-hearty inanity.

But–as many readers have requested–they will all be available in their entirety in this column.

Here’s Part 3 of 4 of an interview I did with Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg. (I will post one video part of the discussion with Zuckerberg and Sandberg every day this week, starting Monday and concluding tomorrow.)

The social-networking site has had quite a year as the hottest and most hyped on the Web 2.0 landscape. With fast growth and still-questionable monetization power, where Facebook is going will be a journey plenty will be paying attention to.

In this video, Zuckerberg and Sandberg talk about why Facebook is a technology and not a media company, as well as how to make money via advertising, how change is affecting the young company, the state of its relationship with both Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT), whether Facebook should sell or go the IPO route, and where the company will be in five years.

Yesterday, in a quarterly regulatory filing, Google stated what everyone and their mother and their sisters and their cousins and their aunts have known for about, say, years now:

That its $1 billion investment in AOL, made in 2005 at a $20 billion valuation, “may be impaired.”

While that makes it sound like AOL has had a few too many beers, actually, this is accounting-speak for: Our investment has tanked big time.

“There can be no assurance that impairment charges will not be required in the future, and any such amounts may be material,” Google (GOOG) said in its filing.

Indeed and coincidentally, in a piece about AOL’s downward valuation and its negative implications for its ability to sell itself to Yahoo (YHOO) or Microsoft, which was published yesterday before Google essentially wrote off a lot of its AOL investment, BoomTown wrote:

Of course, $10 billion is about half as much as AOL was valued in late 2005, when Google forked over $1 billion for five percent of the unit.

At the time, no one actually believed the $20 billion was a real figure, but that it was due more to Google’s incentive to overpay in order to clinch a renewal of its search deal with AOL and ward off Microsoft’s aggressive efforts to steal that business away.”

The Google filing is the company’s official warning that its AOL payola will now have to be accounted for and could result in a charge to future profits.

For a moneymaker like Google, that might not be a problem.

More interesting, of course, are the geopolitics of the whole thing. As part of its investment, Google got the right to demand that the AOL unit be spun off in an IPO or Time Warner (TWX) would have to buy back Google’s stake.

If Time Warner managed to get Microsoft (MSFT) to buy AOL, one wonders what Google might demand.

After all, while its AOL investment might be a dog, it’s still Google’s flea-bitten mutt.

On one of my many trips to Los Angeles (what can I say? I like to hang where LoRo* hangs), I dropped in to see Nick Grouf of Spot Runner.

As many might know, Spot Runner is an online-offline ad agency play that has gotten big funding and even bigger hype of late.

We’ll see how that goes. But Spot Runner actually seems to be tackling an underserved (and unexciting) market of local and national clients in need of cheap online ad solutions married to more traditional marketing venues to boost revenue.

Here’s my video interview with Grouf at Spot Runner’s offices on Wilshire Boulevard:

I met Grouf many years ago when he–along with Spot Runner partner David Waxman–founded PeoplePC and Firefly Networks.

Grouf sold the struggling PeoplePC–which hawked computers bundled with an online service–to Earthlink (ELNK) in 2002 for $10 million and assumption of $35 million in liabilities, in a Web 1.0 meltdown deal that followed a disastrous IPO.

He then started working for the Presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, helping figure out how to best and most cheaply place critical television ads–crunching all sorts of data about lots and lots of neighborhoods and towns and cities nationwide to figure it out.

What Grouf figured out, though, was that a system for doing so was nonexistent.

That experience turned into Spot Runner, which is essentially a do-it-yourself model that tries to iron out inefficiencies in the buying and selling of advertising and bridge the gap between the traditional and online ad markets.

Offering cheap ad templates, clients can make and place low-cost television and radio ads for small and national businesses, as well as political campaigns, and get analytics about the impact of the ads. Some ads cost as low as $500.

Spot Runner got a pile of cash to try to do that better, recently nabbing $51 million in funding to add to the $60 million already raised.

Investors include international media giants Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT.L) and Grupo Televisa (TV), investment company Legg Mason Capital Management (LM) and luxury conglomerate Groupe Arnault/LVMH (MC.PA).

Spot Runner’s previous investors are Allen & Company, Battery Ventures, Comerica Bank (CMA), Lachlan Murdoch, Vivi Nevo, Capital Research and Management, CBS (CBS), Index Ventures, Interpublic Group (IPG), Tudor Investment Corporation and WPP.

Its board includes Index’s Danny Rimer and former AOL exec Bob Pittman.

All that money has given Spot Runner an eye-popping valuation upwards of $500 million.

This is its biggest burden, I think, setting expectations very high for what is still a little start-up.

And while there are rumors of both Microsoft and Google, as well as Comcast, being interested in acquiring the company, Grouf dismisses the speculation.

He says Spot Runner is more intent on using the money raised to buy companies and improve its offerings.

For example, it recently bought Weblistic, a local search listings creator, and hired former Microsoft exec Joanne Bradford.

Bradford, who was a VP and chief media officer of MSN Media Network, is executive vice president of National Marketing Services at Spot Runner, focusing on getting national advertisers to also think small and targeted.

Who knows whether the company will be able to overcome its hype, but time (and money) will tell.

(*And a free D6 bag for anyone who correctly identifies who I am referring to here, either by sending in a comment or an email to me at kara@allthingsd.com.)

Maybe it would be easier to sell Facebook to Microsoft for billions and billions, even though it is not likely you will.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s take the opposing position about the best future for the hot social-networking site.

In other words, make a friendly Microsoft takeover of Facebook your own version of an IPO, as John Furrier has suggested here, and walk away a Silicon Valley legend.

Because such a sale to Microsoft could happen, you know, with or even without you.

Here’s one scenario to think about while on your current worldwide “Vision Quest” trip:

Microsoft (MSFT) somehow screws up its courage again after the Yahoo (YHOO) rejection and makes a concrete offer anywhere above $10 billion for Facebook. And it gets on the record, as it must, at your next board meeting.

Say you refuse, as you have the power to do (and have done before) as founder, due to the voting structure.

But minority shareholders find out (they always do), then some employees and, inevitably, the press.

Mayhem will surely ensue.

Sure, they all stuck with you when you turned down previous offers for Facebook at more than $1 billion from Yahoo, $5 billion from Microsoft, sniffs in that range from Google (GOOG).

That was definitely gutsy for you to do, in your first job and in your early 20s.

But $10 billion, when you have not yet proven you have a truly sustainable and explosive business model of the kind Google luckily found before its IPO?

And what if the Microsoft offer was $15 billion? $20 billion?

BoomTown will tell you exactly what:

Possible lawsuits–ask any good corporate governance lawyer about it–from any number of aggrieved minority investors for not grabbing the Willy Wonka-esque golden ticket when it was offered to you.

Growing pressure from the media–which you are, to be certain, very good at completely ignoring–asking incessantly whether you have just made too big a bet this time.

And, most importantly, from your own employees, the growing worry that even you, especially in a weak economy, cannot spin up a shinier IPO than the money Microsoft is offering you. Stayers can turn into sellers very quickly.

You need to be prepared, BoomTown speculates, for this very possibility and need to have answers when and if the time comes.

That requires asking some questions, which I am guessing a smart young man like you is already asking of yourself.

Such as: At what price should I consider a Microsoft buyout? Could Facebook still be run independently? And, if not, how long would I have to stay at a Microsoft-owned Facebook?

Most importantly, how many other entrepreneurs like me have refused the big buyout and done better?

(The list is long and varied–some like Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin refused and won, but others like former Netscaper Marc Andreessen did not and also did just fine.)

You’re lucky for now, of course, because Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer will likely not make a definitive offer after the Yahoo debacle, without knowing you are firmly on board to at least consider it with a friendly frame of mind.

And, I am guessing, you won’t dangle a price to Microsoft either.

Thus, a chicken and an egg conundrum. Which comes first?

BoomTown is also guessing the bankers are working hard at solving this ancient philosophical causality dilemma–in this case, who can and should move first?

But no matter how much they huff and puff–expensively, of course–the only one who can solve this puzzle is you, at least at this juncture.

And that requires just one basic question for which you need to have an answer ready: Do you truly believe you can do better?

Well, do you?

Furrier thinks not: “Risk losing it all in competitive warfare where you’re undermatched and overgunned. … It’s about basic risk management.”

Of course, all BoomTown can offer to say is this: There is absolutely nothing basic about it.

And, for your viewing pleasure, there is also nothing basic about this delightful man lip-synching to the classic movie “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory” ditty, “I’ve Got a Golden Ticket” (along with the real clip from movie below it):

If wishes were horses, all Facebookers would ride!

But alas, even though BoomTown is also intrigued by the idea as much as tech bloggers Robert Scoble and John Furrier, Facebook is not about to be bought by Microsoft (MSFT).

Unless that is, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer stands in front of Facebook’s Palo Alto, Calif., HQ, starts loading up an air cannon of money that never ever ends and aims directly at it.

And even then, I expect CEO and Co-Founder Mark “Just Say No” Zuckerberg might say no to that, as he pretty much said today from Tokyo about past rumors of a sale to Microsoft.

He shouldn’t, as this might be the social-networking site’s golden–and I do mean solid golden–opportunity. (Furrier argues this Microsoft-as-Facebook-IPO here.)

And while Zuckerberg would not comment on selling to Microsoft specifically, he was pretty definitive on the subject of Facebook’s independence, as quoted by Reuters, while in Tokyo to launch a Japanese version of Facebook:

“You can tell, from our history and what we’ve done, that we really wanted to keep the company independent, by focusing on building and focusing on the long-term.”

A strong sentiment the 24-year-old Zuckerberg has been firmly voicing since he was, well, 22 years old!

And while “wanted” is in the past tense–a Blue’s Clue for conspiracy-minded tech bloggers, perhaps?–Microsoft bankers querying Facebook execs does not a deal make.

Many sources inside and outside Facebook with knowledge of the company said a sale was unlikely and pointed to an IPO as the exit for its investors.

Not that some Facebookers don’t wish that Zuckerberg would change his mind and sell now.

That’s especially true given Zuckerberg’s mind is the only one that matters in the current balance of power at Facebook.

Why? Well, some people I talk to there are worried about a variety of things, especially the prospect of a big, fat cash-out now versus the very slow road to IPO.

While Facebook investors and even the company have once pointed to 2009 as the earliest for such a liquidity event, many sources both inside and outside the company I talked to said Facebook needed to establish a strong and sustainable business model before it can contemplate that move.

Thus, 2010, 2011. Joked one person close to the company: “Try 2021!”

Ahahahahaaa. (Not quite as funny, of course, if you are now holding a private-plane’s-worth of Facebook shares.)

That’s not to say Facebook and Microsoft aren’t friendly or that Microsoft has been uninterested in grabbing hold of the whole company.

They have been for a long time, as BoomTown reported here.

And top Facebook execs recently visited with Ballmer.

Of course, the company is still swimming in the $240 million in cash from the investment Microsoft handed over and collecting those payments from its guaranteed ad deal with the software giant.

And, best of all, Facebook just faced off with Google (GOOG) over data portability, which Google-hater-in-chief Microsoft doubtlessly is cheering on.

So, while all signs point to close friends with some affectionate hugging, marriage is still not in the cards, if it ever will be.